Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

avows a belief that His followers also shall rise from the dead to life everlasting. All this is "supernaturalism."

The second creed adds, that God the Son, " for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven." This also is supernaturalism.

We need not proceed through the third of these documents. It is enough to say, that if these Seven Essayists are consistent and sincere in rejecting supernaturalism in the Bible, they must reject it when they find it in the Creeds also. But what have we then? Why, we have a chaplain to the queen, a head-master of Rugby school, a vice-principal of St. David's college, a vicar of Broad Chalke, a vicar of Great Stoughton, and two Oxford professors, not believing the creeds of the church,—those very creeds upon the profession of which they were admitted into communion with the church, and into the possession of all these honours and preferments!

Can this be permitted? Is its continuance compatible with the church's existence? If we find a state in which the highest crimes are tolerated,-in which theft and murder are committed with impunity, do we not say that it seems on the verge of dissolution, and, in fact, to be scarcely a state at all?

The highest crimes in a church are infidelity and idolatry. Have we not got them both in this volume? God's word is rejected; God's operative providence is denied; and an idol styled "nature" is set up. If these things can pass with impunity, will there remain a real, living, church? Will there be anything more than "an organized hypocrisy"?

Let us imagine, in our civil government, the occurrence of such deeds as are occasionally heard of in countries under arbitrary rule: the commission of murder, confiscation, or ravishing by men in high authority; and no inquiry, or trial, or punishment following: would not all men exclaim, "England is lost; for the laws are dead!" But will it be a less calamitous state of things, if a church which is based upon the Bible, and whose mission it is to teach Christianity, shall allow the Bible to be discredited, and Christianity to be utterly denied, by men holding high office within her pale? Must not the conclusion appear inevitable to the multitude, that there is no real faith, no genuine, earnest belief, anywhere in the church for that, if there were, such offences could not pass unrebuked!

Nothing can be clearer or more positive than the injunctions of Scripture in this matter. Without laying any stress on the commands of Moses, we have the plain and distinct directions of the great apostle of the Gentiles. (Titus i. 11; ii. 15; iii. 10.) And we cling to the belief that we have bishops in the church of England in these days, who will not bring themselves under the prophet's rebuke. (Isa. lvi. 10.)

Perhaps a doubt may be suggested by the singular device adopted

66

by these seven writers. As a whole, the book is a deadly attack on Christianity and the Bible. But nobody has written the whole. Ask the head-master of Rugby, and he will tell you that he has only written a paper on the education of the world, and that he is responsible for his own article only." Ask Mr. Goodwin, and he will reply, that he has merely contributed a paper on geology; and that it is not unusual for geological writers to question the strict accuracy of the first chapter of Genesis. And thus a most formidable engine for the propagation of infidelity is constructed, and yet no one admits that he is responsible for more than a single scientific essay! But, in secular matters, the combination of seven men, to do a certain illegal act, is always taken to involve every one of them in the whole guilt. The ringing of a bell, or the holding of a horse, has involved many a man in the guilt of

treason.

Though the device is new, the object of the union, and the intent of the singularly quiet and unobtrusive appearance of the volume, is, we think, quite transparent. If this volume, which raises so many perplexing questions, is left without censure, it is difficult to see what notice can hereafter be taken of the broadest and plainest declaration of infidelity on the part of any minister of the church of England.

But, after all, we prefer to appeal to the common sense and common honesty of the Essayists themselves. We cannot bring ourselves to regard such men as Dr. Temple and Mr. Jowett as deficient in either. We have shown that, substantially, the faith of these essayists is identical with that of Theodore Parker and F. W. Newman. Why, then, are they not equally straightforward in their conduct? When Parker and Newman gave up the faith in which they had been educated, they abandoned the outward profession of Christianity. They became infidels, and as infidels they were treated. America is the land of entire liberty and freedom from all restraint; but when Parker had made his faith, or rather his want of faith, known, a broad line was at once drawn between him and the Christian churches of the United States. The most popular minister in America, Mr. Henry Ward Beecher of Brooklyn, was obliged to preach and publish an apology for having been once seen on a platform on which Mr. Parker also appeared. As for Mr. Francis Newman, we all know his position in our own country. It never seems to have occurred to him that he might remain in a church after he had abandoned the faith of that church. Yet strange to say, some of these essayists, after adopting and maintaining a principle which makes prayer a practical absurdity, actually pretend to offer up prayer in the great congregation; read Scripture to the people, believing it to contain falsehood; and stand up, in the open face of day, to repeat creeds, the chief articles of which they utterly reject and deny !

PROPHETICAL STUDIES ON THE SEVENTH HEAD

OF THE BEAST.

It is not a new idea that the Seventh Head of the Beast is the Gothic kingdom which was established at Rome by the barbarians after the downfal of Augustulus, the last of the emperors. It was Fleming's opinion more than one hundred and fifty years ago; and the reason for it is shortly this: that the Roman imperial power was the sixth head, and continued till the conquest of Rome by Odoacer; and that the Gothic kingdom filled up the short interval between the imperial government and the papacy. This view, however, has not been generally adopted; partly, no doubt, because of the foreign origin of the barbarian power. But it seems to require further consideration, and it deserves examination whether it was the sixth head or the seventh which was wounded to death.

The subject is confessedly one of much difficulty. Will you permit one who has arrived at the same conclusion as Fleming, in ignorance, or at least forgetfulness, of his opinion, to offer a few remarks tending to support it?

There are few things more striking in history, or more appreciated, than the irruption of the barbarians who overthrew the Roman empire; and no catastrophe could be more complete than this overthrow. It was a complete extinction of the Roman power by the sword. It is hardly possible to conceive anything more appropriate than the prophetic vision. St. John saw a wild beast having seven heads, which we are expressly told are seven kings or forms of government of Rome, of which five had fallen, and one, the imperial head, then existed; and the vision shewed one of the heads wounded to death; and the Greek in Rev. xiii. 3, 12, 14, shews that the wound was with blood, and by a stroke of the sword.

But when the prophecy tells us of the beast which was and is not, and yet is, it reveals still greater wonders. And there is another historical fact perhaps quite as striking and as familiar to us as the effect of the Gothic irruption, and that is the identity of the policy and character of papal influence with that of old Rome. Both are well described in the book of Daniel, as breaking in pieces and subduing all things; and when we read that the deadly wound was healed, we feel that the prophecy has indeed been fulfilled. And we see that this identity between the papacy and conquering Rome is only what was before shadowed out by Daniel's vision, where the iron of the fourth kingdom ran even into the feet and toes of the image, and was thus to continue to break in pieces and to subdue, until the stone cut out without hands should smite the image upon its feet, which were of iron and clay, and break them to pieces. These are such landmarks, that we may well expect any satisfactory explanation of the seventh head to satisfy them all.

The seventh head existed between the Roman imperial power, as it was established in St. John's time, and the Papacy; for we are expressly told that the wild beast which represents the papacy is to be the eighth king or governing power of Rome. At the time of the vision the seventh head was not yet come; "and when he cometh he must continue a short space." The imperial power, then, is represented as continuing, as in fact it did, down to a short time before the rise of the papacy. And the intermediate period, therefore, was to be the duration of the sixth head. And Daniel's image showed clearly that there was no interval, without the fourth empire, which was, in one development of power or another, to continue to the end of time. It thus becomes another landmark that the prophecy represents the period between the imperial power of Rome, as it existed in St. John's time, and the papacy, as but short; and is not this consistent with the facts of history? Between the Roman imperial power, which was overthrown about 476, or perhaps more correctly 479 (Gibbon, vi. pp. 215, 217), and the papacy, which arose about 532 (fifty-three years), there was no government or head of Rome except the kingdom of Odoacer and Theodoric.

Perhaps it comes to us as a difficulty that the seventh head of Rome should thus appear to be a power which was not Roman. But one of the wonderful and well-known facts of history is, how the barbarians identified themselves with the Romans. This has often been noticed, and seems foreshadowed, Rev. xiii. 10, (according to the usual interpretation,) by the earth opening her mouth, and swallowing up the flood. And the mitigation of the consequences of the irruption to Rome and its inhabitants was so striking, that it led Gibbon, in the history of that period, to say, (vol. vii. p. 40,) that it was with pleasure he descanted on the fortunate condition of Italy. Gibbon, however, notices it as a popular error in his day, that Odoacer was a stranger, and a king who invaded Italy with an army of foreigners, his native subjects (vi. pp. 209, 211); whilst, in fact, Odoacer had been for several years in the patrician guards of Rome; and his successful attack upon the empire was the result of a revolt of the barbarians already established in Italy, because they could not obtain onethird of the lands of that country. It was entirely a movement among the Italian subjects of Rome.

But there are other arguments in favour of this interpretation of the seventh head; and they will be better appreciated if we keep in view all the landmarks which have been referred to.

When it is said the deadly wound was healed, unless we assume that the healing was instantaneous, it is plain that time must have elapsed whilst the healing process was going on. If we regard the sixth or imperial head as that which was wounded to the death by the sword, and was healed (and the sacred text only says it was one of the heads, and all the facts of history leave us little

[blocks in formation]

choice,) the seventh head would fill up the interval till the healing was accomplished. And the prophecy in other parts so clearly shows the extinction of Roman authority, that the seventh head must be essentially different from that which was wounded and restored; and there is then scarcely any difficulty attending this head; but on the contrary, there is at least one very striking passage of Scripture, which is found distinctly applicable, and throws great light on the prophecy as relating to it.

The terms of the prophecy of the seventh head are very suggestive. At the time of the prophecy, it is said, "he is not yet come, and when he cometh he must continue a short space." We have seen that there was but a short space between the empire of Rome and the papacy. But why was it necessary that the seventh head should continue a short space?" The prophecy relates to some antecedent or extraneous reason for it: and it seems to be found in the 2nd Thess. ii. 6, "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, only he that letteth will let until he be taken out of the way; and then shall that Wicked be revealed," who is to continue till the coming of the Lord. Adopting the usual meaning, that the imperial power of Rome was preventing the establishment of the papacy, it is plain that the seventh head could only continue as long as it fostered the papacy, and healed the wound; for if it had gone beyond this it would have become a hinderance; and that would have been inconsistent with the prophecy in Thessalonians, where the then existing dominion is plainly shown to be the only hinderance. This prophecy of St. Paul therefore required that the papacy should not appear to be delayed by any power intervening between it and the Roman empire as it existed when he wrote this epistle.

But it is time to turn to history. It appears from Gibbon, that after the downfall of Augustulus, in 476 or 479-which latter he evidently thinks (vol. vi. pp. 215 and 217,) the better date -Theodoric, who conquered Odoacer, reigned till 526; and then his son, a boy of ten years old, became king, and reigned for six years (532); and on his death Theodatus, who had married the widow of Theodoric, and so obtained the kingdom, in the very beginning of his reign (534) surrendered his kingdom to Justinian, who (vol. vii. p. 219) accepted the resignation. Theodatus repented of this surrender as soon as made, and resisted the armies of the eastern emperor; but Belisarius took Rome in the year 536, and in 539, as Gibbon expresses it, subdued the Gothic kingdom of Italy. The beginning of the suppression of this Gothic kingdom was the act of resignation which happened (534), just about the time of Justinian's decree (532), from which the rise of the papacy is dated.

A new light is thus thrown upon a part of history to some extent generally known, but little appreciated. Who that has

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »