« ПредишнаНапред »
may be ascertained from the Apocalypse, which shews that, as being cotemporary with the seventh Vial, it must fall in between them, or immediately precede the Millennium.
This alteration made in the place of the seventh Vial, with respect to the numerical epochs of Daniel, relating only to time, does not affect any of the arguments as to the connexions of prophetic events with each other; but has thrown great light on the theory of all the latter chapters, and especially on the seventeenth, of the Apocalypse. When this Chapter was supposed to refer to the period of the thirty years, and of both the seventh and eighth headships, or sovereignties of the Roman Empire, the remarkable enigmatical passage of the eighth verse, where it is said that the Beast of Infidelity, the subject of the vision,
was, and is not, and yet is" or more properly "was, and is not, although he is," was considered to be a recognition of a moral and prophetic truth, that the rise of infidelity in the Roman Empire, at the commencement of this period, was in a certain sense a re-appearance
of its ancient paganism; but being now found necessarily to refer to the subsequent period of the 45 years, and of the eighth headship only*, implies that this future headship will be (although in a limited and enigmatical sense) a re-appearance of the former seventh; and thus understood it agrees with, and further explains, the declaration of verse 11 of the same chapter, that the eighth headship shall be "of the seven;" for from both passages taken together, a near and intimate connexion is shewn to exist between the past seventh and the future eighth, yet not amounting to perfect identity. In explanation of which it is necessary now briefly to remark (as will be more fully discussed hereafter) that the criterion of headship is plainly sovereignty in the city of Rome, with whose seven hills the seven headships are by Rev. xvii. 9, indissolubly united; and that the six first of these are on the most satisfactory historical evidence universally admitted to have been Kings, Consuls, Dictators, Decemvirs, Military Tribunes, and Emperors; which * See page 29.
imperial headship was continued in the line of the German Emperors till the year 1806, when the Emperor of Austria renounced the title of Emperor of the Romans, and absolved the states of the Empire from their oath of allegiance to him in that capacity; and the sixth headship, which had been continued above eighteen centuries from the time of the first Cæsar, fell.— Napoleon Buonaparte subsequently became the short-lived seventh head, as was formerly stated by Mr. Cuninghame; was, and is still, maintained in the Combined View; and is now also latterly argued by Mr. Faber*; and which is indeed too clear to be disputed: but this headship cannot be considered to have risen in 1804, when he became Emperor of the French, for that is no title of headship, having no reference to sovereignty in the metropolis of the Empire, and the sixth, at that time also existed in the Emperor of Austria, who yet retained the title of Emperor of the Romans"; nor yet in 1809, when the city of Rome was annexed to France,
See extracts from the works of Mr. Faber, and Mr. Cuninghame in note to pages 105-108.
for still he possessed no direct title of headship; nor can the seventh be considered to have been completely formed till, in 1811, the young Napoleon was from the first moment of his birth, solemnly joined by his father in headship of the Empire as King of Rome; when the title, which was hitherto wanting, being thus supplied, the headship constituted unitedly in Napoleon the father and the son, (and which in former instances had consisted of two, or even of ten members) was completed, and continued till April 1814, when it also fell by Napoleon, in the name of both, resigning all rights, and titles of sovereignty in Rome.
That which is stated in the prophecy of Rev. xvii. 11, relative to Antichrist, in his last form as eighth head of the Empire, having been previously" of the seven," will therefore be satisfactorily explained, should the young Napoleon be indeedthe individual who is spoken of by almost all the prophets, as the leader of a great confederation against Christ in the latter days, and who is described under the symbols of the last Head of the Beast of Rev. xvii. the imperial
Sun of Rev, xix. 17, and the King of Dan. xi. 40-45; and who it clearly appears from other prophecies, as well as those of the Revelation, is to be the head of the Empire, or to obtain sovereignty in Rome; and admitting the incontrovertible truth that Napoleon Buonaparte was the seventh head, it does not appear how it could be said hereafter of any individual, on his future rise to the headship, except of his son who was formerly joined with him in that dignity, that he "was and is not although he is;" but of the young Napoleon, it would then be true that he formerly "was"" of the seven;" and that though he "is not" the identical or entire seventh head that "was" (the efficient and actual sovereignty in the metropolis of Rome, and over the whole Empire having been undoubtedly possessed by Napoleon the great), yet in a certain sense it might be said that "he is" the seventh head, that "was," having alone possessed, during its period, the title of sovereignty or headship*.
* The young Napoleon was born King of Rome or "Prince "of this world," his cradle was ornamented with the imperial eagle and with a representation of the infancy of Romulus,