1

modification propounded by the Rev. W. G. Barker, in a Letter printed in 1850 in the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy; and another, with its own marked peculiarities, published quite recently by Mr. W. Kelly, of Guernsey. Of each of these I now proceed to offer a brief notice.

1. Mr. Barker.

Mr. B.'s Paper, which is written in a kindly spirit, is entitled, "An Apology for Moderate Futurism." After stating at the outset his persuasion that the number of prophetic students who held moderate Futurist views is greatly on the increase, (a persuasion in which I suspect him to be mistaken,) he proceeds to express a hope that they who hold the "Protestant view will be constrained to admit that

selves to the intelligent reader. 1. How could the Apocalyptic temple-measuring, in which the outer part was cast out as given to the Gentiles, and moreover the holy city given to be trod by the Gentiles for 42 weeks, correspond with the measuring of the city in Zechariah, to the intent and effect of Jerusalem being inhabited as towns without walls by the restored Jews of the which it is said, "for I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round about?"-2. How could the Beast be a Roman power, as R. D. admits it to be, and with a local fixation to the Roman site, by reason of its seven heads signifying the seven hills of Rome, and yet have its seat at Jerusalem ?-3. How, if the apostasy of 2 Thess. ii. be the Roman Papacy, such as for ages it has been developed, can the official heads of this apostasy, i. e. the Roman Popes, after manifestation before the world in that character, fail of answering to St. Paul's Man of Sin; or how this Man of Sin be meant of a chief not directly heading the apostasy, but only closely allied with its head ?-4. How, as regards Ezekiel's temple and city, could that appertain to the Jews when restored but not converted, and when indeed (according to R. D.) Antichrist is to occupy Jerusalem and its temple as his seat, and yet have for its name and title, "the Lord is there?"-5. How can the New Jerusalem of Apoc. xxi. be the city simply of the restored Jewish nation, when its name is declared to be written on the faithful of Gentile Asiatic Churches, such as that of Philadelphia, Apoc. iii. 12?

But, as before said, the Scheme is evidently not digested.-I observe with pleasure, as well as surprise, one point of agreement between us; viz. in that R. D. has anticipated me in making the great white throne of Apoc. xx. 11 synchronize, at its first setting up, with the commencement, not the end, of the millennium. When I drew out my argument on that point (see pp. 215, 216, suprà) I was not aware that the idea had been entertained by any previous expositor. R. D. only states the idea. He does not argue it. No. VII. for April, 1850.

In my 4th Edition of the Horæ, I took Mr. C. Maitland's "Apocalyptical School of Prophetic Interpretation," for my second example of modified Futuristic exposition. And, if any of my readers wish to see it fully examined into and criticised, they may there find what they wish. As it is, considering that the Book and its suggested views have now probably past into oblivion, and moreover that I have had occasion again and again to show up Mr. C. M.'s inaccuracies in my History of Apocalyptic Interpretation, (see suprà pp. 275, 276, 278, 279, 281, 282, 284, 285, 286, 302, 305, 306, 307, 308, 313, 319, 320, 344, 351, 362, 368, 379, 380, 423, 424, 441, 539,) I think it better to take Mr. W. Kelly's more recent book as my second specimen of modified Futurism; especially as I imagine it to give the views of a large Section of “the Brethren" (originally called " Plymouth Brethren ") on the Apocalyptic prophecy.

moderate Futurist views may be maintained together with the most consistent Protestantism: and may even be reconciled with a modified admission of the cherished views of the historical interpreters." And then, and in evidence of this, he lays down the following several points on which, in a certain way, the Protestant Futurist and historical expositors have agreement:-viz. 1. in supposing that we are now near the time of the consummation;-2. in supposing the Apocalyptic Babylon to mean the Papacy ;-3. in holding Daniel's four great empires to be those of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome;-4. in expecting a national restoration of the Jews to their own land;besides that, in the 5th place, Moderate Futurists are inclined to admit that the Apocalyptic figures may have been so ordered as to have a resemblance to the various historic realities that historic interpreters have variously applied to them; insomuch that these realities may have been in a manner shadows of a more perfect fulfilment yet to come.-Together with the notices of which several points of agreement, there is insinuated on each topic a notice of the superior strength of the Futurists, where the two schools differ.—It is with the 2nd and 5th of these notices that I am alone directly concerned in this present Paper. On the others however, in consequence of the above-mentioned insinuation, I think it right to add a few remarks in the Note subjoined.'

1 As regards Mr. B.'s 1st supposed point of agreement between the historical interpreters and the moderate Futurists, viz. 'as to the present nearness of the consummation, the following extract from Mr. C. Maitland's book (p. 404), who is to be classed among the latter, may suffice to show Mr. B.'s error:-"Of the yet remaining length of Rome's career we know nothing certain from prophecy: it may be that the sorceress has still before her long ages of iniquity; or it may be that we are now resisting her latest arts."-And certainly, on Futurist principles, Mr. C. M. appears to me to have all the reason on his side, as against Mr. Barker. For putting aside, as Mr. B. does, all evidence derivable from the near expiration of certain long chronological periods, commencing from known historic epochs, and reaching to the consummation, from what can he draw his conclusion but from the now existing signs of the times? And are those signs so decisive and distinctive of themselves, especially when compared with what have been in past ages, as to furnish a sufficient warrant for it? For example, one marked sign of the approaching consummation that the Futurists' theory requires is the disruption and division of the Roman empire (hitherto most marvellously supposed by them to be unbroken and undivided) into ten contemporary kingdoms. Compare then the evidence on this head now presented to Mr. Barker's eye, with the corresponding evidence about it, that presented itself to the affrighted eye of Jerome, at the opening of the 5th century:-then when the Roman empire was inundated by a flood of barbarous nations, among whom he marked and enumerated ten, as chief and most eminent, God's prepared instruments apparently for breaking

* See my p. 324, and p. 506 Note' suprà.

1. Now on Mr. B.'s attempt at Protestantizing, in a manner, the Futurist views of the Apocalyptic prophecy, there needs but very

up and then dividing the empire among them: and with every circumstance attendant that could make men's hearts fail for fear, and from looking on the things that were coming on the earth. Which, I ask, from the mere evidence of the signs of the times had the greater reason for affirming the nearness of the consummation, Jerome or Mr. Barker? Surely the former. And yet we know that near it certainly then was not.* 2. "Both parties," says Mr. B., "agree that the vision of Daniel's great image has its fulfilment in the four great empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome : adding, with reference to the fact of some Futurists (e. g. Drs. Maitland and Todd) disputing the last, that Moderate Futurists do not dispute it; "neither is it at all necessary to the consistency of Futurism that they should."

Is it not necessary? Let us consider the case as between these moderates of the school, and what Mr. B. would designate as the extreme Futurists. It is of course essential to the Futurist system to regard its expected, and still future, Antichrist's empire as the last of the great mundane empires, and to assign it a place in Daniel's image accordingly. Shall it be then the whole of the iron legs and feet, or only the feet and toes? Say Drs. M. and T., the whole of the iron legs. But then Mr. B. and his moderates shrink back (and no wonder) from the idea of that long vacant unrepresented interval which this involves; and of the legs of the image dangling correspondingly by a long thread, as I stated in my Chapter on the year-day, Vol. iii. p. 298. It is only the feet and toes, exclaim the Moderates; or, as Mr. B. himself seems to prefer, the toes themselves only all the rest, legs and feet, being that Roman empire which began long before Christ's first coming, and is still (they say) not yet ended. But how? The iron legs represent alike the old Roman empire of Augustus, and the Papal empire of the middle age and modern times, as if all one and the same empire, continued uninterruptedly and in undivided form, even until now? Surely, observes Dr. S. R. Maitland,† it is clear that the old Roman empire, "the empire ruled by Augustus and Constantine," has long ceased to exist: and that nothing but the "exigency of system" can make writers on Prophecy gravely affirm the contrary. Besides which Mr. B.'s system makes Antichrist's empire, which he would have to be the strongest as well as most universal that the world has ever seen, to be represented, not by iron feet wrought into greater density and strength than the common iron of the legs above, but by feet or toes part of iron and part of clay, partly strong and partly brittle, and thus less strong and united than the iron legs of the Roman empire above them!

Mr. Barker passes over these obvious and fatal objections without notice. But, by way of compensation, he calls in the doctrine of arithmetical proportion, as allied with him against the historical expositors. "What disproportionate toes," he argues, "that have to symbolize in their length some 1300 years, while the joint legs and feet of the image have but to symbolize some 700 or less? On the other hand, how just the proportion and scale, if we suppose the ten kings that are to be the future Antichrist's contemporaries and subjects, during the destined 3 years of

Compare my remarks in Vol. iii. pp. 264-267, on the almost absolute necessity of long chronological periods (albeit with certain ambiguities attendant) in order, concurrently with the signs of the times, to give the warning intended of the near approach of the consummation; and moreover the fact of this being accordant with the precedent of the evidence given by God of the near approach of Christ's first coming which last point will be found illustrated very fully in my concluding Chapter in this Appendix. † On Antichrist, p. 6.

Mr. B. dates Rome's supremacy from B. C. 197, when Macedon yielded to the ascendant of Rome; whence to the breaking up of the Roman empire on the Gothic invasion, A.D. 476, would be near 700 years. There seems some misprint in Mr. B.'s own numerals.

brief reply to show its futility. Says he; "Both parties admit that the Apocalyptic Babylon signifies the Papacy. If they (the Historicals) think the Woman has mounted the Beast, we believe the Woman will mount the Beast: so we can both agree that the curse of God rests on that false system of religion." But no! Not so. According to the Futurists (albeit in most manifest contradiction to

his reign, to be figured by the statue's ten toes!" *—Now chronological proportion was evidently no object in the prophetic figuration, as appears from comparing the chronological lengths of the three first empires with the parts of the image symboliz ing them; but only a representation of the succession of the great empires. But, as Mr. B. will construct an argument from it, let us see how the argument really stands. We may perhaps reckon five toe-lengths for the foot, and between two and three foot-lengths from the foot upward to the knee. Thus the proportionate length of the toe to the conjoined leg and foot may be roughly reckoned at a twelfth. So that if, chronologically applied, the toe represent 3 years, so as Mr. B. makes it do, then the leg and foot together ought proportionally to represent 3 × 12- = 42 years. Instead of which, however, they are, according to Mr. Barker's scheme, to represent the period from B. C. 197 to A. D. 1850, at the very least; or about 2050 years, i. e. just 50 times 42 years!-But this in fact is an understatement. For it is clear from Dan. ii. 33, 41, that not the toes of the image only, but the feet, part iron, part clay, in which the toes centred, were the intended symbol of the 4th or Roman empire after its division; just as, in the parallel Apocalyptic figuration of Antichrist's decemregal empire the Beast's head was a part of the figuring symbol, as well as the ten horns that grew out of the head. A view this which is further illustrated by the statement that the stone smote the image on the feet, not on the toes, at the epoch of its final destruction. Which being so, the disproportion on Mr. B.'s futurist view is vastly greater being that of the foot to figure the 3 years, and scarce 24 foot-lengths, or from the knee-joint of the image to the ankle, to figure the 2050 years! On the other hand, on the historic principle, we have from the knee to the ankle to correspond with the 700 years of the old Roman empire; and from the ankle to the end of the toe to correspond with the 1300 years of the Romano-Gothic Papal empire. A chronological disproportion, no doubt; in a figuration however, as before said, in which chronological proportion was not the objeet. But in this case it would be a disproportion, comparing figure and fact, of only 1 to 4, or 5; whereas in Mr Barker's scheme it is as 1 to above 200!!

3. Says Mr. B., " Both parties agree in expecting a national restoration of the Jews to their own land. But the historical interpreters, while admitting the Israel of the Old Testament prophecy to be the literal Israel, and its participation in the glories of the reign of the coming Messiah, do yet in the Apocalypse find no place for the Jew. They say, It is a Gentile prophecy." ↑

In this statement, and the idea of the Jew being "utterly and entirely past over by historical expositors of the Apocalypse, Mr. B. is incorrect. At the precise epoch, to which he makes special reference, of Messiah's assumption of the kingdom, and bridal, I have myself only followed in the wake of many previous expositors of the same school, in supposing the converted Jews' participation and prominency in the song of welcome and joy to be probably indicated by the Hebraic terminology for the song, Hallelujah. But with regard to Mr. B.'s requirement of the twelve tribes of Israel mentioned in Apoc. vii. being recognized as "the restored tribes of the literal Israel," Mr. B., is very well aware of, though he does not notice, the argument

* I have here comprest, and altered with a view to compression, Mr. B.'s words. + Again I slightly alter Mr. B.'s phraseology, with a view to brevity. See pp. 50-52 suprà.

Scripture prophecy)' the Beast Antichrist's religion (if I may use such a misnomer) is to be open avowed infidelity. And, while in such close alliance with Antichrist as the Apocalyptic figure of the Woman sitting on the Beast implies, we cannot suppose her avowed religion different: especially since Antichrist, according to all the Futurists, will allow no alternative but that of receiving his mark and worshipping his image, or death. Which being so, Babylon, on the Futurist view, must at the time depicted be professedly infidel: and this indeed not of compulsion, but heartily, and as herself a prime agent in the matter; since, whatever the false religion, she is herself the one to drug the nations with its philtre cup, and this even to the last. Now it is specially for Babylon's sins committed during the time depicted in the Apocalyptic vision, of her riding the Beast, that God's judgment is pronounced on her: 3-i. e. (still on the Futurist hypothesis) for her final avowed infidelity, not for any other previously cherished sins. Whence it results that for Rome's Papal errors there is no special judgment from God. And if so, and that there is not even a note of Apocalyptic protest or warning on God's part against Rome's previous Papal religion, simply and distinctively, what can be the inference but that, after all, in God's eye, Popery is not a thing so very bad?-Thus I find myself forced to regard Mr. Barker's attempt at Protestantizing the Futurist Apocalyptic Scheme as an utter failure. And let me further add on this head, that I think it ought to be viewed as a little suspicious in that system by (the decisive argument, I may say) against any such allowance; viz. from the Christian meaning, as primarily declared by Christ himself, and to a considerable extent admitted by the Futurists themselves, of the chief Jewish types and figures in the Apocalypse. On this point I have entered fully in my previous Section. And it is an argument which I am persuaded not all the ingenuity of all the Futurists that exist now, or hereafter may exist, will ever be able to overcome. And its effect, even were it by itself, is to leave the whole scheme of Futurism (alike that of the Moderates and the Extremists) a hopeless ruin.

1 See my p. 623 et seq. suprà. Let my readers well mark that up to the moment of his final destruction, instead of being depicted as an avowed infidel power, the Apocalyptic Beast, Antichrist, has the lamb-like two-horned Beast, the symbol of a falseprofessing Christian Hierarchy and priesthood, with him, as his attendant and prime minister.

* I beg my readers to mark this; and how in Apoc. xvii., xviii., at the epoch im mediately before her destruction, she is depicted, not as a subordinate, but an alldominant queen.

3 Her judgment is in Apoc. xviii. 2, 3 declared to be because of her having committed fornication with the kings of the earth, (evidently those associated with the Beast,) as well as having with her philtre cup made drunk all the nations.

* See pp. 610-612 suprà.