PART I. Comparison of the Prophecies of Daniel, of St. Paul, and of the Apocalypse, alluded to in DAN. vii. 8, 24, 25; 21. 11. Ὁς ὑπεροισει κακοις παντας τους Και το κέρας έκεινο ἐποιει πολεμον μετα τῶν ἁγίων, καὶ ίσχυσες προς αυτους. this work. REV. xiii. 11-18; xix. 20, 21. αλλο θηριον ἀναβαῖνον ἐκ τῆς γῆς, 12. Και την έξουσίαν τοῦ πρωτου θηριου πασαν ποιεῖ ενωπιον αυτού. p. 294 of 2 THESS. ii. 3-5, 8, 9, 10, 11. Ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὁ υἱος Και ποιεί την γην και τους κατοικούντας ἐν (τον, οτι εστι θεος. 14. Και πλανᾷ τους κατοικούντας ἐπι τῆς γῆς Οὗ ἐστιν ἡ ἡ ἀποστασια τευσαι αυτους τῳ ψεύδει. εις το πιστ Έως ἀνηρεθῃ το θηριον και ἀπωλετο, και το σωμα αυτού έδοθη εις καυσιν πυρος. 15. Και έδοθη αυτῳ δουναι πνευμα τη εικονι του θηριον, ίνα και λαλησῃ ἡ είκων του θηρίου, και ποιηση, όσοι αν μη προσκυνήσωσι την εικονα του θηριου, ἵνα ἀποκτανθωσι. 16. Και ποιει παντας, τους μικρους και τους μεγαλους, και τους πλουσιους και τους πτωχους, και τους ελευθερους και τους δουλους, να δωσιν αυτοίς χαραγμα ἐπι τῆς χειρος αυτων της δεξιας, η έπι των μετωπων αυτών. 17. Και ίνα μη τις δυνηται ἀγορασαι κ. τ. λ. ο Chap. xix. 20. Και έπιασθη το θηριον, και ο μετ' αυτῳ ψευδοπροφητης ὁ ποιησας τα σημεια κ. τ. λ.—ζωντες ἐβληθησαν οἱ δυο εἰς την λίμνην του πυρος την καιομενην ἐν τῳ θείῳ. 21. οι οἱ λοιποι ἐπεκτανθησαν εν τη ρομφαία τοῦ καθημενου ἐπι τοῦ ἱππου, τῇ ἐξελθουσῃ ἐκ του στοματος αυτού. Ον ὁ Κύριος Ιησους ἀναλώσει τῳ πνευματι του στόματος αυτού, και καταργησει τῃ ἐπιφανεια τη παρουσίας αυτου. ΕΕ In comparing these descriptions of Antichrist we must observe, that the prophecy of Daniel is the most general, and the most obscure of the three. This is agreeable to the analogy of prophetical Scripture, which is found to afford additional information, as it approaches nearer to the times foretold. The prophecy of the Apocalypse exhibits a nearer view of the common subject, and discovers objects which had not been discerned before; while the words of St. Paul may be taken as a comment on those of Daniel; and, being the comment of an inspired writer, may be considered at the same time as illustrating, by the Holy Spirit, the prophecy of the Apocalypse. The little horn, which, in the vision of Daniel, had appeared somewhat more than a common horn, (for it had eyes, and a mouth, and spake, and fought, and conquered,) upon a nearer view, as presented to the apocalyptic prophet, becomes a separate wild beast; and yet, between him and the other wild beast, there is, as in the prophecy of Daniel, a very close connexion and resemblance. He exerciseth all the power of the first beast; renders him an object of worship; becomes great through his influence; partakes all his fortunes; and perishes with him at the last. This nearer view discovers to us also the two-fold ecclesiastical power which Antichrist was to establish, and which did not appear distinctly at the distance at which it was shown to Daniel. This me 1 Bp. Lowth's Prælect. xx. p. 197. 2 Yet it is remarkable, that the three horns rooted up, the three kingdoms destroyed by the little horn, though represented by Daniel, are not at all noticed in the vision seen by St. John. This part of the prophecy of Daniel appears to me to be of difficult solution. The three kingdoms, which by modern expositors are assigned for this purpose, "the exarchate of Ravenna, the kingdom of the Lombards, the state of Rome," (Bishop Newton, &c. &c.) taken all together, make so petty a territory, that they seem to compose only thod of sacred prophecy, wherein one vision, under the same or different imagery, enlarges upon another vision, and refers to and illustrates the same original archetype, may be frequently observed. Instances occur continually in the visions of Daniel, which, as Sir Isaac Newton remarks, "all relate to one another, every following prophecy adding somewhat new to the former."1 The vision of the beasts is only that of the image enlarged, yet represented under other symbols; and thus the vision of Antichrist, in the Apocalypse, is no more different from those of Daniel, than those of Daniel are from each other. All look to the same times, all are from the same sacred inspiration, and unfold and confirm each other. a part of one of those ten kingdoms into which the Roman empire, (whether we consider either the whole of it, or the western part only,) was divided. Yet if these be the kingdoms, they belong to one horn only, of the second apocalyptic beast, and to that horn which is to be viewed more particularly in ch. xvii.: and thus perhaps in some degree the omission is to be accounted for. Sir Isaac Newton on Daniel, part i. ch. 3. PART II. Comparison of Mahometism with Popery, alluded to in p. 295. THE Mahometan, as well as the Papal, was no new religion, but a corruption of that which we acknowledge to have been revealed to Adam, to Abraham, to Moses and the prophets, and finally completed in our Lord Jesus Christ. For Mahomet admitted, as the basis of his superstructure, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, alleging only that they had been corrupted in those places, which he found it convenient to frame anew.1 So the Christians received him as a prophet, at the time of his flight from Mecca.2 And without this apostasy of the Christians, which he artfully fomented and always expected, his daring schemes must have failed. The king of Ethiopia and his subjects were converted to Mahometism by considering it as a divine addition to the Christian religion. The Christians were uniformly invited to embrace Mahometism as a more perfect divine revelation. They, with the Jews, as believing the foundations of the same revelations, were at first treated with peculiar lenity and respect. They were called the people of the book, and as such, were tolerated in the profession of their respective religions, on paying a moderate tribute, 3 1 Koran, ch. iii. iv. v, &c. 4 2 Prideaux, Life of Mahomet, pp. 76, 161. |