Part 23 (1/2)

THE MARK OF THE BEAST.

”With regard to the mark of the beast,” Mr. Faber ”thinks, with Sir Isaac Newton, that it is _the cross_,” (p. 176.) This _thought_ has indeed been almost universal in the minds of protestants. So deep-seated is this conviction in the popular belief, that one is deemed chargeable with temerity, if not something worse, who would call its grounds in question. Popular opinion, or belief in matters of this spiritual and mystical nature, is, however, of very little weight in the estimation of such as are accustomed to ”try the spirits.” Although the mark was to be received at the instance and by the authority of the two horned beast of the earth, it was not enjoined as a mark of devotion to _himself_. It was manifestly commanded by him as a _tessera_ of loyalty to the ten-horned beast of the sea, the obvious symbol of corrupt and tyrannical civil power. Instead therefore of the cross as a sign of devotion to Popery,--of members.h.i.+p in the church of Rome, as identifying with the beast's mark, this mark is evidently and demonstrably the tessera of loyalty to the Roman empire,--immoral civil power; and this, too, in any of the dependencies of that iron empire, (Dan. ii. 40; vii.

7.)

From the errors and vagaries of this learned and acute expositor, some of which have been pointed out, it is apparent that no amount of intellectual culture, no natural powers of discrimination, no logical or metaphysical ac.u.men, will compensate for the want of early and accurate training in the knowledge of supernatural revelation. On the prophetical and priestly offices of our Redeemer, some of the English prelates have written with a force, perspicuity and zeal against the heresies of the Romish apostacy, not excelled by the writings of those who have dissented from the semi-papal hierarchy of the Anglican Church. But on the _royal_ office of Immanuel, their prelatic training and a.s.sociations seem to have blinded their minds. ”No bishop, no king,” is a maxim which seems to lie at the foundation of all their political disquisitions and speculations, and which gives a tincture to all their expositions of prophecy. Nevertheless, even in this field of labor, the diligent student may consult with much advantage the learned works of such writers as the two Newtons, Kett, Galloway, Whitaker, Zouch, with their predecessors, Lowman, Mede and others.

After all, the best works to be obtained as helps to understand the prophetic parts of Scripture, will be found in the labors of those who, from age to age, have obeyed the gracious call of Christ,--who have ”come out from mystic Babylon,” from the Romish communion,--from the mother and her harlot daughters, and who have a.s.sociated more or less intimately with the _witnesses_. Among these may be consulted with profit the works of Durham, Mason and M'Leod. But while searching after the mind of G.o.d revealed in this part of his word, let us never exercise implicit faith in the teachings of any fallible expositor. Let us always regard the injunction of our apostle:--”Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of G.o.d.” Of course, the only infallible standard by which we can try the spirits is the whole word of G.o.d,--”comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

THE FIRST RESURRECTION.

Bishop Newton, among those divines distinguished in ecclesiastical history as Millenarians, may be regarded as one of the most learned, judicious and cautious. The amount of the deductions which this cla.s.s of writers draw from the scripture phrase ”first resurrection,” and its context, confirmed as they suppose by many other parts of Scripture, appears to be the following:--All the righteous shall be raised from their graves to meet our Saviour coming from heaven at the beginning of the Millennium: he and these saints, clothed in real human bodies, are to dwell and reign together upon a renovated earth during that happy period. Indeed, writers on this interesting subject differ so much in details, that no well-defined theory or system can be discovered among them. The _literal resurrection_ of the bodies of the saints, and the _corporeal presence_ of Christ among them, seem to be the cardinal points of agreement with this cla.s.s of expositors; and from this literal interpretation of the resurrection of the righteous and bodily appearance of the Saviour, they either took or received the name _Millenarians_. Other Christians, however, who differ from them in the interpretation of symbols, are no less believers in a millennium than they,--a thousand years of righteousness and peace _on the earth_.

Bishop Newton understands ”this 'first resurrection' of a particular resurrection preceding the general one at least a thousand years.” ”It is to this first resurrection,” says he, ”that St. Paul alludes, (1 Thess. iv. 16,) when he affirms that the 'dead in Christ shall rise first,' and (1 Cor. xv. 23;) that every man shall be made alive in his own order, Christ the first fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming.” It is surprising that a person of the Bishop's learning should so readily mistake the _sound_ for the _sense_ of the words which he quotes. While the apostle is, for the ”comfort” of the saints, treating of _their_ resurrection, he is evidently speaking of the general resurrection at the _end of time_. In the morning of the resurrection Christ's members will be raised after the manner and in virtue of his resurrection,--”the first fruits” securing the following harvest, in obvious allusion to the ceremonial law. In the other case, when Paul says, ”the dead in Christ shall rise first,” does he mean,--before ”the rest of the dead?” No, but before those of their _redeemed brethren_ who shall then be ”alive and remain;” for these ”shall not prevent (_antic.i.p.ate_) them which are asleep,” (_in the grave_.) That is, the bodies of the saints who have died shall be raised in glory, _before_ those then alive shall undergo a change equivalent to that of the resurrection. Such is manifestly the meaning of the apostle's plain language which has no reference whatever to the millennium, not even the remotest allusion. Nothing but a groundless preconception of the nature of the millennium will account for the sound of words taking the place of their sense in the reader's mind, and no degree of mere scholars.h.i.+p can obviate this propensity of the human mind in ”the things of the Spirit of G.o.d.”

Not only does the learned prelate misapprehend and misapply the texts above quoted to support his theory, but he makes a gratuitous concession, which is at once fatal to his scheme and inconsistent with himself. He says,--”Indeed, the _death_ and _resurrection_ of the witnesses before mentioned, (Rev. xi. 7, 11,) appears from the concurrent circ.u.mstances of the vision to be _figurative_.” The Bishop evidently viewed the witnesses of the eleventh chapter as a company altogether different from those of whom John speaks in the twentieth chapter, (vs. 4, 5.) This is another of his surprising mistakes; for that the _identical party_ as a moral person appears in both parts of the symbolic and allegorical representation will readily appear to any unbia.s.sed mind by an induction of the following particulars.

These witnesses are to continue ”prophesying 1260 days (_years_,) (Rev.

xi. 3.) Then they are killed, (v. 7.) But we learn that _in death_ they are _victorious_, (ch. xii. 11) They triumph ”with the Lamb on Mount Zion,” (ch. xiv. 1) In a similar att.i.tude of triumph they again appear ”standing on the sea of gla.s.s, (ch. xv. 2.) They are with their victorious King, (ch. xvii. 14.) They are exhorted to retaliate upon mystic Babylon, (xviii. 6.) They are also engaged in the last campaign with the Captain of their salvation, (ch. xix. 14, 19, 20.) And at length they are advanced to thrones of civil power to ”rule the nations,” (ch. xx. 4,) in fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy and their Saviour's promise, (Dan. vii. 27; Rev. ii. 26, 27.) The death and resurrection of the witnesses is compendiously stated in the former part of the eleventh chapter, (vs. 7-14;) but these events, epitomised again in the ”little book,” are amplified in the subsequent chapters, where we are made acquainted more fully with their enemies, their conflicts, death, resurrection, ascension and exaltation; and in all these respects is exhibited their conformity to the example of their Captain and Leader. If, therefore, according to the Bishop's conception, ”the death and resurrection” of the witnesses in the eleventh chapter be _figurative_, and if the witnesses of the twentieth be the same as those of the eleventh chapter, which ident.i.ty I have proved, it follows incontrovertibly, that the ”first resurrection” is to be understood in a figurative sense. This interpretation may be abundantly confirmed in the following manner:--The witnesses prophesy 1260 years. But since no individual persons live so long, a succession _must_ be supposed. They are, in fact, mystic characters, having their real counterpart in actual history on this earth. The scarlet colored beast and woman, (ch. xvii.

3,) are of equal duration with the witnesses, and of similar mystic character, and have their real counterpart in history. The witnesses are slain by the beast at the instigation of the woman; but their death is only temporary, (ch. xi. 7, 11;) their enemies ”have no more that they can do:” while, on the other hand, the death of the beast is ”perdition,”--eternal death, (ch. xvii. 8,) and in this death the woman,--”the false prophet” partic.i.p.ates, (ch. xix. 20.) All this symbolical language respects Christ's enemies as corporate or organized bodies.

Here it is proper to notice an objection of Bishop Newton. He asks,--”With what propriety can it be said, that some of the dead who were beheaded ”lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years; but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished;” unless _the dying_ and _living again_ be the same in both places?” Very true, the dying and living are doubtless ”the same in both places.” The Bishop's mistake consists in taking these expressions in a literal sense, ”a proper death and resurrection.” He evidently a.s.sumes that ”the rest of the dead,” here mentioned, are to be literally raised at the last day. This is undoubtedly true, for there shall be a resurrection ... of the unjust.” (Acts xxiv. 15,) but it is not the truth contained in the words in question. From the a.s.sumption of the _literal_ raising of ”the rest of the dead,” he infers the _literal_ raising of those that were beheaded. The converse of this is obviously the correct way of reasoning. We have found that the witnesses are spoken of, (xi. 14,) as _figuratively_ raised by the Bishop's own acknowledgment, therefore it is most natural and logical to infer that ”the rest of the dead” were to be raised in the same manner, namely, _figuratively_. As at the beginning of the millennium,--the martyrs, not some of them only, as the Bishop hints, will be raised in the persons of their legitimate successors in faith and practice; and their faith and practice will const.i.tute the happy state of the world for a thousand years, so, when that period shall have expired, Satan, being ”loosed out of his prison,” (ch. xx. 8,) will deceive the nations as before, and during the ”little season” of liberty, will succeed in raising from the dead as it were, a mult.i.tude of the same character as those who killed the witnesses,--”Gog and Magog.” This maybe called the _second_ resurrection, and there will never be a _third of that kind_, for the Lord will destroy them for ever, (ch. xx. 9.) The character of the witnesses and their unparalleled conflicts with Antichrist sufficiently identify them in the Apocalypse throughout the 1260 years, as also during the thousand years of their reign; and the character of their enemies identifies them in the time of conflict for 1260 years; but during the succeeding period of righteousness and peace for a thousand years, they will not be permitted to lift up the head. And so soon as they are organized under the conduct of Satan, and like Pharaoh, most confident of victory, (Exod. xv. 9,) then ”sudden destruction cometh upon them, and they shall not escape.”

THE IDENt.i.tY OF THE TWO WITNESSES.

The late Rev. Alexander M'Leod, D. D., who had the works of learned predecessors before him, has successfully corrected many of their misinterpretations in his valuable publication, ent.i.tled ”Lectures upon the Princ.i.p.al Prophecies of the Revelation.” At the time when he wrote that work, he possessed several advantages in aid of his own expositions. He had access to the most valuable works which had been issued before that date, (1814.). He was then in the vigor of youthful manhood; and he was also comparatively free from the trammels which in attempts to expound the Apocalypse, have cramped the energies of many a well-disciplined mind, _political partialities_. At the time of these profound studies, he occupied a position ”in the wilderness,” from which as a stand point, like John in Patmos, he could most advantageously survey the pa.s.sing scenes of providence with the ardor of youthful emotion, and with unsullied affection for the divine Master. With all these advantages, however, the dispa.s.sionate and impartial reviewer may discover, in the rapid current of his thoughts, that the active powers of the expositor some times took precedence of the intellectual. Two special causes may be a.s.signed for this, hereditary love of liberty, and the actual condition of society at the time. Born in Scotland, the cradle of civil and religious liberty from the days of John Knox, Dr.

M'Leod's traditions and mental a.s.sociations were necessarily imbued with the atmosphere of such surroundings. To such causes may be attributed occasional declamation, extravagant verbosity and unconscious inconsistencies, not well comporting with the solidity and self possession so desirable on the part of an expositor. Yet even in such outbursts of impa.s.sioned eloquence we may sometimes discover n.o.ble conceptions commanding our admiration, if not altogether such as to secure our approbation. It ought to be considered, moreover, that the ”Lectures” came from their author in a turbulent, if not in a revolutionary condition of society. Peninsular Europe was convulsed by the successful military career of that brilliant general, Napoleon.

England and the United States were also at war. The independence and even the existence of the young Republic were apparently in peril. The lecturer very naturally sympathized with the land of his adoption, in which resided his domestic treasures and many of the ”excellent ones of the earth,” to whom he was bound by conjugal, paternal and covenant ties. In a condition of actual warfare, he could not but feel most keenly the constriction of these manifold and endearing bonds, especially when thought to be jeopardized.

With these preliminaries, and expressing my obligation to the Doctor's labors, to whose system of interpretation as well as to most of his details, I cheerfully give my approbation in preference to all other expositors whose works it has been in my power to consult; it is proposed briefly to review some of his expositions and sentiments, from which I crave liberty to dissent. ”It is not the interest of any man to be in error.”

In his interpretation of the seals and trumpets of the Apocalypse, Dr.

M'Leod has unquestionably corrected many misapprehensions of his learned predecessors, especially Bishop Newton and Mr. Faber: and it is perhaps to be regretted that he did not favor the public with his view of the vials also, a work which he seems to have had in contemplation when the ”Lectures” were published. The three last named interpreters did certainly improve upon the expositions of all who went before them in this field of investigation; and in most cases of disagreement the Doctor excelled in accuracy the other two, as will readily appear on careful examination.

In attempting to ascertain the import of the mystic ”witnesses,” as of the Antichrist, expositors widely differ. Bishop Newton says positively,--”The witnesses cannot be ... any two churches.” Mr. Faber is equally peremptory, that they ”must be two churches,” and he attempts to sustain his position by many citations of Scripture, and by much plausible argumentation. The Bishop is substantially correct in saying, ”They are a succession of men, and a succession of churches.” Mr. Faber is also correct in the main when he says,--”The two witnesses signify the spiritual members of the catholic church:” but his notion of _two churches_, the ”Old and New Testament churches,” betrays his imperfect conception of the _essential unity_ of the church of G.o.d. Both he and the Bishop overlook too often the important fact that civil magistracy is a divine ordinance, which, as corrupted, const.i.tutes the first beast of the Apocalypse, and the most prominent feature of the great Antichrist.

Doctor M'Leod's definition or description of the witnesses is as follows:--”They are a small company of true Christians, defending the interests of true religion against all opposition, and frequently sealing with their blood the testimony which they hold,” (p. 314.) This description is more definite than either of the two preceding, and is therefore worthy of preference; yet the reader will still wish for something more precise and tangible. Since the prophets of the Old and New Testaments reveal the hostility of the Devil to Christ and his people, and since both Daniel and John represent this hostility by appropriate and intelligible symbols, as carried out by corrupting the two great ordinances of _church_ and _state_, would it not follow that the witnesses are those Christians who, for 1260 years, apply the word of G.o.d to these two ordinances, contending for a _scriptural magistracy_ and a _gospel ministry_,--the ”Two Sons of Oil;” and testifying against their _Counterfeits_? Such appears to be the import of those mystical characters of whom we read, Zech. iv. 14; Rev. xi. 4.

In tracing the witnesses through their eventful history for 1260 years as portrayed in the Apocalypse, and in fixing with precision their _continuous ident.i.ty_, I am constrained reluctantly to dissent from the Doctor and agree with Faber. Adopting the language of ”Frazer's Key,”