« ÎnapoiContinuați »
real religious feeling towards false deities, he worships certain beings called protectors, and a strange god! The inference from this, therefore, evidently is, that he may, for anything said or implied, also honor the god of his fathers with external worship, under the influence of worldly and politic motives. Hence it must be acknowledged, that the notion so universal amongst the expositors of the present day, that the king who does according to his will denotes an Infidel king, is totally destitute of any support from the prophecy Daniel ; in fact, the probability is strongly against it. He who whilst destitute of any sincere attachment towards any object of worship, yet honors as god certain “protectors," and a strange god unknown to his fathers, may naturally be expected with similar inconsistency, to yield outward homage to the God of gods, towards whom he all the while experiences no sentiment of regard.
The next verse is so manifestly incorrect as it it stands in our Bibles, that I am compelled to offer new translation. The Authorized Version reads as follows:-“ Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.”—Dan. xi. 39. Now, if we regard the verb () , () of the verb (1737), the literal version of the passage
will be as follows :-“ He shall do thus [as to] the defences of the Mahuzzim, and the strange god which he will acknowledge :he shall multiply glory [to them], and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall portion out the land as a reward." This version, in which it will be perceived by those who consult the original text, no liberty whatever is taken with it, affords a very obvious meaning :-“ The defences of Mahuzzim" is clearly a figurative expression for “defenders of," that in which their chief strength lies, and probably refers to
as the object (למבצרי) as pleonastic, and construe (עשה)
the principal supporters of that idolatrous worship,—those, who by their influence, instruction, and example, advocate the worship of the “protectors.” Unto these individuals the king shall multiply glory, and shall place them in stations of great authority, and portion out the land unto them as a reward for their services.
To recapitulate the substance of the foregoing exposition. This celebrated prophecy of Daniel has no reference to an Infidel king.
It describes rather some extended line of potentates (it may be presumed spiritual potentates from the frequent introduction of religious subjects), who shall stand distinguished from all other powers, by their absolute despotism, unequalled self-exaltation, and impious pretensions. Potentates too, who, destitute of all true piety, and yet raised far above the absurdities of paganism, should from motives of policy, offer divine homage to, and lavish costly offerings upon certain protectors, and a strange god which their fathers knew not; who, again, shall be remarkable for some undefined disregard of the natural attachment of man to the female sex, and who shall exalt to stations of authority, and reward with territorial possessions, the supporters of that system of idolatrous worship which they had instituted in the earth. Lastly: omitting all mention of the period of his rise, it expressly states that his prosperity should end, when the divine indignation displayed in permitting Anti-christ to stand up should be completed, thus affording a presumption, though not a proof, that it should also commence with it.
If these particulars are truly contained in this famous prophecy, its application to the Papacy may be dispatched in a few words :- There is one, and only one line of potentates, whose despotism has so far exceeded that of all other powers, as to have passed into a proverb ; who have succeeded by dint of unceasing efforts and unrivalled sagacity in exalting themselves far above all besides, whether in heaven or on the earth,
and whose blasphemous pretensions to divine attributes resemble the ravings of insanity more than aught besides; who too depraved to be susceptible of religious feelings, and too enlightened to view with actual idolatry any of His mere creatures, have yet, with wondrous inconsistency, for the establishment of their power, set up tutelary saints, and a Queen of Heaven in the sanctuary of God, whose shrines have for ages blazed with the “gold, and silver, and precious stones, and desirable things," with which superstition has vainly thought to bribe heaven ;—whose supreme devotion to the grand object of aggrandizing themselves, has led them to enforce celibacy upon the instruments of their ambition ;who have raised to places of power, and rewarded with territorial possessions, the principal supporters of the idolatrous worship they established ;-whose career of prosperity, though occasionally checked, has never come to a stand, from the period when first “ the saints of God were delivered into its hand,” and is now the only dominion, which, after a lapse of twelve hundred years of changes and judgments, of revolutions and reformations, still holds undiminished its ancient sovereignty, still “sits upon many waters," and rules with undisputed sway over “ peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."
It thus appears, that instead of predicting a final stage of Anti-christ to arise in the last days, there does not exist a more striking description of the Papacy, than the miscalled Infidel king of Daniel ; but I have further to remark, on the gross absurdities which abound in the theory of Faber, Habershon, and others, that the prophecy received its accomplishment in the person of Napoleon Buonaparte, as the head of Revolutionary France :
1st. The idea that the desire of women means Christ, is totally unjustifiable, as well as absurd. The desire of women clearly denotes that affection of which women are the objects, and not the subjects. It is thus the ancient versions translate the expression (the Syriac has concupiscentiam). The prophecy, therefore, is clearly identical with that of the Apostle Paul, “forbidding to marry,” and refers to the constrained celibacy of the Romish clergy.
2nd. The plain declaration that “he should worship a god whom his fathers knew not ;" or, as it is also styled, “a strange god,” is explained away, so as to mean, “a god worshipped in a strange manner." Were such liberties allowable in expounding the prophecies, a commentator might make them utter anything he chose. 3rd. The word (Dryo) is translated by him“
strong military protectors," and in justification, he remarks, “so far as its abstract meaning is concerned, the term itself is military.” This, however, is certainly incorrect. The word is derived from 11y, firmus fuit, and its primary meaning, therefore, is locus firmus, nor has it any reference whatever to military affairs in its abstract sense.
4th. The theory that Buonaparte constituted the seventh head of the ten-horned Wild Beast, upon which his interpretation of the military restrainers is built, is grossly inconsistent and absurd, as I have already shewn in a former work (Downfal of Popery, &c., p. 24).
5th. The most gross inconsistency of all yet remains to be noticed. “The indignation" of the Almighty, which I have already shewn to denote the displeasure of God during the twelve hundred and sixty years of Anti-christian usurpation, -and which unquestionably denotes that period in the only other place where that expression occurs with reference to yet future times “ And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation : for at the time appointed the end shall be.” (Dan. viii. 39),—in the theory of Faber, signifies“ the angry defiance” of the Emperor Napoleon, and the sense of the passage accordingly is said to be,-Prosperity shall attend him until his angry defiance be accomplished; but, still says he, it is by no means implied that prosperity shall cease when his defiance is accomplished ; all that is said is, “that he shall prosper until it is accomplished !” Accordingly he did prosper eight years afterwards, and prosperity did not altogether leave him till another seven years had elapsed, when the Battle of Waterloo, fifteen years after his angry defiance was accomplished, arrested his career, and banished him to St. Helena. Thus, he
prospers about as long after the angry defiance is finished as he had before (for his reign commenced according to Faber, 1793 A.D.); and he partially prospers seven years after this. The limit, therefore, which the prophecy assigns to the prosperity of the king turns out to be really no limit at all, since he prospers as long or longer after that era than before. And what will the reader imagine was the particular event, which, according to Faber, proved that the angry defiance of the God of gods, by the Emperor Napoleon had ceased ? It was, he gravely asures us, the formal re-establishment of the enormities of Popery in France, by means of the well-known concordat of the Emperor with the See of Rome !
The theory of a still future form of Anti-christ has been also supported by a reference to 1 John ii. 22,—“ He is Anti-christ, which denieth both the Father and the Son," which, it is asserted, the Romish hierarchy has never done, since they affect the highest veneration for God and the Redeemer. It should be remembered, however, that the same Apostle says of this very Anti-christ that it was then in the world,—“ This is that spirit of Anti-christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is in the world.”—1 John iv. 3. He, therefore, did not refer to anything new which should hereafter rise, or the language would be incorrect; but merely to to a further development of principles already in operation, which agrees with the