|
Isaac Newton | Protestant History | 3 Interpretations | Daniel | Revelation | Armageddon | Audio Links | Site Index |
| Home ¬ Previous Page ¬ The Red Republic, Chapter 4 | ||||||||
BABYLON shall fall; but before that, the Witnesses must be slain, ver. 7, 11 When they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against there, and shall overcome them and kill them." Although the period for the prophesying of the witnesses, in round numbers is, called 1260 years, it is plain, (from ver. 9, 11) that it falls short of that number by three years and a half. Three years and a half before the expiring of the 1260 years, their active testimony for Christ is destined to come to an end. Then shall this successful Assault be made upon them;. then shall they be overcome and slain.1 What are we to understand by the slaying of them? Clearly, not that the true Church of Christ shall be extinguished, that all true christians shall be slain. The promise of Christ to his first disciples precludes the possibility of this; "On this rock I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
In all ages, without a moment's intermission, till the very consummation of all things, shall Christ have a Church upon the earth. Its members may be driven into corners; they may be compelled to hide themselves, like the 7000 in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal; when Elijah thought himself absolutely alone in his fidelity to Jehovah; but they shall never cease to exist. The slaying of the witnesses is just the putting down of their testimony, the suppression of the true worship of God: This, however, unquestionably implies severe persecution. It is not conceivable that the testimony of Christ's faithful witnesses can be suppressed without great bloodshed. If the streets of Paris have run with Huguenot blood, if the fires of Smithfield have been fed with Protestant victims, if the Alpine valleys have been whitened with Waldensian bones, if the dungeons of the Inquisition have been crowded with the saints of God, while the witnesses were yet alive and prophesying in sackcloth, what slaughter, what havoc, must be made upon the godly, before their testimony shall be entirely suppressed! The last persecution, beyond all question, shall be the worst.
The downfall of Antichrist is a cheering thought. Most professing protestants hook forward to it with pleasure. But the prospect of so dark and gloomy a night before the dawn of the millennial day, is not a little stumbling to many. To slumbering churches, and, those who are at ease in Zion, nothing can be more unpalatable; and with such it has ever been a favourite idea to persuade themselves, that the slaying of the witnesses is past, and that no such time of tribulation is at hand. Even individuals of distinguished talents, and unquestioned piety, and who commence the 1260 years at or near the period already indicated; have incautiously cast the weight of their authority into the same scale. Admitting that we have commenced right in A. D.606, it would seem impossible, by any human ingenuity to escape the conclusion, that. the witnesses cannot yet have been slain: The language of the text is express; "When they shall have finished their testimony, the beast shall overcome and kill them." Then and then only shall their testimony be put down. How, then, it may be asked, do those who start from the same point as I have done, contrive to make it appear that the witnesses have been slain already? There are two ways:
I.The first-is that of Fleming in his treatise already referred to, "the Rise and Fall of Papacy," which has of late attracted considerable attention. His way is to make the "prophesy ing in sackcloth" one thing, and their " testimony" another. Their prophesying in sackcloth he holds, according to the usual opinion, to be their maintaining the truth of Christ in circumstances of sorrow and depression; their "testimony" he restricts to their "witnessing unto death," or testifying for Christ by "martyrdom." The former he admits is to continue during the 1260 years; the latter was to be only for a part if that period. As on his view, it was only in connection with the finishing of their "martyrdom," that their testimony was to be every where, suppressed, he thinks that that is long since past, and that consequently the overthrow of Rome may be expected with out any such period of trial to the saints as I have been insisting upon. But to this view there are two special and inseparable objections.
II. The theory of the Rev. E. B. Elliott; A minister of the Church of England, who has laboured hard on the subject, and who, by bold assertions, and a vast display of learning, has gained not a few adherents to his opinion. To shake the confidence of all sober-minded men in the soundness of Mr Elliott's judgment, it might be enough to state, in limine, that he finds, in this very chapter under discussion, conclusive proof of the right of the civil magistrate to model, and control, and govern the church of Christ at his pleasure. The gift of the measuring reed by the angel of the covenant, the sole Head of the church, to his own spiritual servant the apostle John, he holds to be a demonstration that all spiritual authority in the Protestant churches flows to the ministers of Christ through the hands of the temporal prince! The mere statement of this opinion, especially when taken in connection with the character of Christ's Two Witnesses, as described in this prophecy, is, to our mind, sufficient to refute it. But to come to his theory in regard to the death of the witnesses; he also maintains, as well as Fleming, that the witnesses were slain in 1514, just three years and a half before the appearance of Luther. But how does he reconcile that with his own view, that they began their prophesying in sackcloth, not earlier than the sixth century, and consequently in A.D. 1514, when they were slain, instead of prophesying 1260 years, had prophesied only about 1000? He does so by giving a new interpreation to the word "finish." "When they shall have finished their testimony," he says, does not mean when they shall have finished the period appointed for them to testify in, that he admits to be the 1260 years, but "when they shall have completed the elements of their testimony," when they shall have testified against all the abominations of Antichrist. This he maintains was during the dark ages, about the end of the twelfth century, when the Papacy had reached its meridian; and that then the Beast from the bottomless pit began that warfare against them, which, centuries after, ended in their complete extirpation, just three years and a half before Luther posted up his theses, against the indulgences, on the door of the cathedral of Wittemberg.
But to this view there are as fatal objections as to the former. Even if the proposed rendering might be admitted, nothing is more easy than to show that the testimony of the Witnesses could not be "complete" before the Reformation. The Church of Rome, it is true, was corrupt and antichristian then; but it has become far more antichristian since. When Luther appeared, it was possible for a man within its pale to hold and teach the great doctrine of justification by faith alone. The whole spirit and actings of Popery were doubtless opposed to it, but yet there visas no express and formal deed of the church absolutely condemning it. It was not till the Council of Trent, which finished its sittings in 1563, more than forty years after the Reformation, that every man was formally anathematized who taught that all dependence on our own works must be renounced, and salvation sought only through the blood and righteousness of Christ. At the Reformation, too, Jesuitism, with its monstrous abominations, was unknown. Luther and Loyola were born in the same year; but it was long after the theses were affixed to the cathedral of Wittemberg, that that society, which the latter founded, reduced fraud, and falsehood, and crime, to a regular system. In the hands of Loyola and his disciples, who, by their doctrines of "probability," "mental reservation," and "direction of the intention," have taught men the most approved modes of sinning with a safe conscience, the immorality and corruption of Rome have appeared with a malignancy altogether unprecedented. Even the blasphemies of the Papacy were immature attheiime of Luther. For centuries after the Reformation, and indeed till the reign of the last Pontiff, it was an open question, whether or not the Virgin Mary was born without sin. Those who taught that she was conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity, like other mortals, were held to be as good sons of the church as those whsL taught the reverse. But such is not the case now. In 1832, Gregory XVI., speaking ex cathedra, positively determined what previous Popes had absolutely refused to settle; and not only did he pronounce her to be "immaculate," but be declared her "our greatest hope; yea, the sole ground of our hope;" thereby dethroning the one only Mediator between God and man. Now, if the corruptions of Rome have been thus germinating and blosoming up to this day, even though we accept of Mr Elliott's interpretation of "finishing the testimony," it is plain that that testimony could not be full and complete at the period when his theory requires it to have been so.
But granting that the witnesses did complete their testimony, and were slain before the the Reformation; then observe what follows: It is said that three years and a half after their slaughter, they rose from the dead, and ascended up in triumph to heaven; and yet, after their resurrection, their ascension, their triumph, for upwards of 300 years they have still been prophesying in sackcloth and sorrow What can be more contradictory? what more incongruous? He that can believe this can easily believe anything.
But, in point of fact, it is not true that the witnesses of Christ were slain, or their testimony suppressed, before the Reformation. This has been boldly asserted by Mr Elliott; but the facts of the case, when examined, entirely disprove the assertion. I will give first Mr Elliott's statement on the subject, and then compare it with the undeniable facts of the period, and leave the reader to judge whether the statement and the facts agree. And here I may observe, by the way, that the theory of the "Seventh Vial" being avowedly founded on this very statement; the facts, which demolish the one, of course at the same time demolish also the other. After quoting the verses of this chapter which speak of "them of the people, and kindreds, and tongues, and nations," rejoicing over the dead bodies of the witnesses, Mr Elliott goes on to say, "The very occasion of the Two Witnesses appearing as dead corpses, is described to have been one of precisely such a gathering--the gathering of some general council from the several states of Western Christendom . . . . So that, on the whole, in turning from prophecy to history,.from the.symbolic picture to the thing symbolized, it seems almost impossible to mistake the precise scene and occasion alluded to. It can surely be one other than that of the very Lateran council, held from 1512 to 1517, under the pontificates of Julius II. and Leo X., just before the Reformation."
Having stated that one chief object for which this council was held was the suppression of heresies, and in special of the heresies of the Bohemian Hussites, the author thus proceeds:"In a Papal bull, issued with approbation of the council, in the very next or eighth session, held December 1513, a charge was issued summoning the dissidents in question without fail to appear, and plead before the council, at its next session, unless indeed they should have previously done so before a neighbouring Papal legate; the declared object being their conviction and reduction within the bosom of the Catholic Church; and the time finally fixed for the said important session, May the 5th, in the spring ensuing. Thus was the crisis come which was to try the faith of this bleeding remnant of witnesses, and exhibit its vitality or death. And would they therefore face their Lord's enemies? Would they brave the terrors of death, and plead his cause before the lordly legate or the antichristian council, &c. I Alas! no. The day of the ninth session arrived; the council met; but no report from the cardinal legate gave intimation either of the pleading, or even of any continued stirring of the Bohemian Heretics. No officer of the council announced the arrival of deputies from them to plead before it. Nor, again, was there a whisper wafted to the synod from any other state, or city, or town in Christendom, of a movement made, or a mouth opened, to promulgate or support the ancient heresies. Throughout the length and breadthoof Christendom, Christ's witnessing servants were silenced; they appeared as dead. The orator of the session ascended the pulpit, and, amid the applause of the assembled council, uttered the memorable exclamation of triumph, "Jam nemo rectumat, nuttus obsistit." "There is an end of resistance to the Papal rule and religion; opposers there exist no more."
Such is Mr Elliott's statements; and certainly at first sight, it looks something like the slaying of the witnesses. But examine it more closely, and it will be seen to be altogether delusive.
1. Observe the ground on which it is assumed, that all faithful witnessing for Christ was extinct throughout the bounds of Christendom. The servants of Christ in Bohemia are summoned to a Popish council in Rome, for the express purpose of making their submission to the Man of Sin; and, because they do not appear, they are held to have abandoued their testimony. What reason had they to appear and plead before a Roman Council? They testified that the Pope was Antichrist, and renounced both him and all his Works Why then should they, of their own accord, put themselves in his power? Mr Elliott refers to Luther, Wickliffe, Lord Cobham, and others, as having proved themselves faithful witnesses of Christ, by doing the very thing which the Hussites of Bohemia had failed to do. But the cases are far from being parallel. When Luther appeared to plead the cause of truth before the Diet of Worms, he was still a Roman Catholic priest. The Bohemians, on the other hand, had utterly broken with the Church of Rome, and had not the slightest wish for a reunion. Besides, there was essential difference between a diet of the empire; and a council of Romish ecclesiastics. Before an assembly composed in great part of laymen; whose minds had been opened less or more, to a sense of the corruptions of the Church, by his own writings, the truth might have some chance of a fair and candid hearing. But no such candour or impartiality could be expected by the Bohemians from the Lateran council: They were summoned before men who had condemned them unheard, and whose interests and passions stopped their ears to every plea but that of instant submission. The case of Wickliffe is just as little to the point. When summoned before the Popish assembly at Oxford, he had no alternative but to appear. Having never separated from the Romish Church, he could not dispute the jurisdiction of the council appointed by its authority to try him and his doctrine. Had he, in such circumstances, refused to appear and plead, it might well have been counted a failure of duty, and an abandonment of the cause of Christ. Neither Luther, nor Wickliffe, then, can help Mr. Elliott in the least. But what shall we say of his alleging the case of Lord Cobham? Lord Cobham did plead, and that manfully, before the prelates who thirsted for his blood: but did he come before them of his own accord? No. When first summoned to appear at Leeds Castle, in Kent; he utterly refused, and was condemned and excommunicated for contumacy. It was only when he was arrested by the commandment of the king, when he was imprisoned in the Tower of London, and from his dungeon brought by the lieutenant of the Tower, and placed before the bishops, that he witnessed that good confession for which he is commended! And Lord Cobham is to be held up as a faithful witness of Christ, while the Bohemians, who acted on the very same principle, and whose only fault was, that they were more successful in escaping the snares of their enemies, are to be branded as traitors! Mr Elliott is very unhappy in his instances. His principle, too, is utterly antiscriptural. There is nothing in the word of God that requires his servants to act as he would have them.
Quite the reverse. It was the command of our Lord to his disciples, "Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot, and turn again and rend you." John Huss, the countryman of these Bohemian witnesses, about a hundred years before forgot this; and relyng on a safe conduct of the Emperor Sigismund, had come to the council of Constance. What was the result? His safe-conduct was violated and he himself consigned to the flames: His countrymen had learned something from his fate; and mingling the wisdom of the serpent with the harmlessness of the dove, refused, as there was not the least prospect of good to be gained by it, to put themselves unnecessarily in the hands of "the woman drunken with the blood of the saints." Their Lord and Master, the Lord of all faithful tend true witin esses, in like circumstances, acted in like manner. "After these days," says John, "Jesus walked in Galilee, for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." Did Jesus thereby abandon his testimony Neither did his servants in Bohemia, when they did what they could to keep themselves out of the hands of those whose only argument with heretics was, "turn or burn."
2. The statement which Mr Mott makes in regard to the absence of all report from the Papal Legate sent into Bohemia, taken. in connection with the circumstances, is, in itself, positive demonstration, that the witnesses were not unfaithful. What is.his statement) It is this, " Thus was the crisis come. And would they face their Lord's enemies? Would they brave the terrors of death, and plead his cause before the lordly legate, or the antichristian council, &c. ? Alas! no. The day of the 9th session arrived. The council met. But no report from the cardinal legate." This Mr Elliott holds to be one grand proof, that tehier witnessing was extinct. Now, I make bold to affirm, that it proves just exactly the reverse; that it proves that, instead of, being put down, instead of being silenced, they were at that moment maintaining their testimony, as unequivocally as before. A brief statement of facts will make this abundantly plain: and the facts shall be derived from a source which Mr Elliott cannot question; his own work, just published, entitled "Vindicaew Horariae." Well, then, in 1513, Cardinal Thomas of Strigonium was despatched by the Pope into Bohemia, for the express purpose of rooting out; if possible, heresy from that country. When he was despatched, it was well known at Rome, that there Were in Bohemia not only Caligtines but Hussites, the purest body of Christ's witnesses, in a position of avowed opposition to the Papal church.2
In the same year, the Pope's bull was issued, giving them the choice either of pleading at Rome, or making their peace before the cardinal, in their own country. That bull testified to the existence of " manifold heresy," (multiplex haeresis) in Bohemia. Now, what success attended the legate's mission? Did he succeed in extinguishing the Hussites, in putting down the "multiplex haeresis" of the Bohemians? If he did, of course there were two ways only by which that could be accomplished: The one was by force, the other by conciliation. Did the sword, then, or the stake, purge Bohemia of the taint of heresy? There is not the slightest evidence of anything of the kind. Mr Elliott himself elsewhere admits, that from 1511, when Andrew Poliwka was burnt at the stake, until the Reformation, there is no trace of martyrdoms in Bohemia. "He (Poliwka)," says he, "seems to have been the last of the Bohemian martyrs before the Reformation; at least, the last whose name is on record." If, then, the "manifold heresy" of Bohemia was utterly extinct before the 5th of May next year, 1514, that event must have been brought about by conciliation alone by the pruent policy adopted by the Papal legate. Now, here let the reader mark the bearing of Mr Elliott's statement, about the entire absence of all "report from the cardinal legate." When the cardinal lebate was sent to Bohemia to bring back the remnants of the Calixtines and Hussites into the bosom of the Church, as these heretics pleaded the concessions of the Basle Council, Leo, with the view of facilitating their conversion, empowered him "to renew these concessions, on condition, however, that every thing should be rerred to the Lateran council."3 If, therefore, the Papal legate had made any impression upon the heretics of Bohemia, if he had gained over either Calixtines or Hussites, the tenor of his commission required him of necessity to report to the council the converts he had made, and the terms he had granted them. "But," says Mr Elliott, "the day of the 9th session arrived. The council met. "But no report from the cardinal legate." What then is the inevitable inference? -that his mission had been a failure--that converts he had made none that Caliatines and Hussites alike had held aloof from him, and that he had left the "manifold heresy" of Bohemia exactly as he bad fouhd it. I appeal to the reader, if it be possible to resist this conclusion. Let Mr Elliott himself candidly examine my argument, and refute it if he can.
3. But perhaps the reader may ask, What do you make of the triumphant exclamation of the orator, which Mr Elliott quotes as the very climax of his proof, that heresy was extinct? Now, his use of that exclamation is precisely the most unaccountable perversion of language that can be conceived. How Mr Elliott could apply it in the way he does, knowing the circumstances in which it was uttered, I am at a loss to comprehend. When the orator uses the expression in question: "Jam nemo reclamat: nullus obsistit," "No one any longer reclaims--no one opposes," he uses it in a very different sense from that which is attributed to it by Mr Elliott. It has been conclusively shown by Dr Keith,4 that when these words were uttered, the meaning was not that heresy was extinct--not that there was an end of resistance to the Papal religion--not that the Bohemians were put down,--but that the schism which had previously existed within the Papal church itself bad been healed, "the unity" of that Church restored, and the authority of Leo X. as "legitimate" Pontiff, universally acknowledged.
A schismatical council, a short while before, had been held at Pisa, in opposition to the court of Rome. The French bishops and French king, Louis XII., had at first supported its decisions; but the kingdom of France having been laid under an interdict by the Pope, the king of France, the mainstay of the schismatics, had found it necessary to give way, and had sent ambassadors to the Lateran council, to intimate his submission. To this it is, and not to the suppression of heresy, that the orator refers. The words that occur in immediate connection with the expression in question, preclude the possibility of any reference to the Bohemian heretics. "No one," says the orator, addressing Leo X., "no one reclaims: no one opposes . . . all at length look for healthful food to thee." This was strictly applicable to the supporters of the Pisan council, who had petitioned for the recall of the interdict, for the restoration of Papal ordinances, which during the season of the interdict had been suspended, and consequently for a supply of that spiritual " food" which had, during the same time, been withheld, and which Rome alone could give. But to the heretics of Bohemia, it could nod apply. Why not? says Mr Elliott. Why could it not apply to " converted heretics," as well as to "converted schismatics?"6 For this plain reason, that upon Mr Elliott's own showing, as we have seen, in regard to the "no report from the cardinal legate," "converted heretics," there were none, from Bohemia, at least, to seek for any such "healthful food." Nay, this very oration itself, from which a single isolated expression is culled, to prove the utter extinction of heresy, contains positive evidence in its own bosom, that heresy was not extinct. So far from rejoicing in the entire extinction of heresy, the orator enumerates "the extirpation of sprouting heresies," as among the things which require still to engage the council's most earnest care, and which they must take pains, with all diligence and wisdon, "to discuss and settle." Nothing is more certain: nothing can be more easily proved, than that during the whole time that the Lateran council sat, heresy was far from being either dead or dying.
At the opening of the council, in the first sermon preached before the assembled fathers, we have evidence how much and how painfully its influence was felt. "Heresy and infidelity," says the preacher, "obstruct us, and greatly trouble both us and the whole church.8 During the five years of its sitting, no better account could be given. Why was it that the Bohemians were summoned to the council at all? It was, says Waddington, one of Mr Elliott's own authorities, although this he does not quote, "because the heresy was again rising into formidable attention."9 fi This statement is amply borne out by Roman Catholic authority that cannot be gainsaid. Mansi, the editor of the Ecclesiastical Annals of Raynaldus, expressly states, that during the time the council sat, "the Bohemian heresy," so far from being extinct, "was flourishing" (vigebat). On the 5th May 1514, the very day when the oration referred to was made, the Pope issued a bull, in which the actual existence of " heresies" is distinctly recognized, and in which the cardinals are required "to labour strenuously to know what regions have been infected 10 with them, and to report on the subject "to him and the Roman pontiff for the time being." Is not this enough to show that heresy was not suppressed at the time when Mr Elliott would have it so? If anything more is needed, the language of the bull of Leo X., issued in 1518, just one year after the rising of the council, must be amply sufficient.
Thus runs the bull in question; "Pondering maturely in his own mind, how the holy expedition might be carried out, that the kingdom of Bohemia, formerly Catholic, might be reclaimed from the errors and heresies into which for many years it had fallen, and be brought back in to the bosom of holy mother church; and reflecting on the great prudence, &c., of his beloved son, Cardinal Thomas Sixtus, and his fitness for the charge of restoring to the faith each and all of the said lapsed kingdoms, and other neighbouring regions, his holiness therefore enjoins him to remove by his authority all errors from that kingdom, and those other places which were infected as if by a long. contagion, that the plague of heresy might be purged out, eradicated, and utterly destroyed." "Given at Rome, the 9th of May in the year one thousand five hundred and eighteen, in the sixth of our pontificate," and addressed "to our sons the Emperor Maximilian and the King of Dacia." Now, here the Pope himself, who certainly is an authority on the subject, declares, that at that very time, when the witnesses in Bohemia are said to be extinct, that whole kingdom and other neighbouring regions, had "for many years been infected with the plague of heresy, as if by a long contagion." It is in vain to say, as Mr Elliot does, that the Bolemian heretics, though reconciled to the Church in 1514, had suddenly been raised again into portentous vigour by the appearance of Luther six months before; and hence this Papal bull.
This is a mere assumption, and inconsistent with the very terms of the bull itself. Had heresy been extinguished in Bohemia four years before, and just broken out anew within the last few months, there would have been some hint, some expression of surprise and disappointment. The language muss have been very different from that in which it is couched. Instead of speaking of Bohemia as "formerly Catholic," but "for many years fallen into errors and heresies," from which it needed " to be reclaimed," it would have characterized it as "recently Catholic, but unhappily "relapsed within the last six months" into heresies " from which it had been reclaimed." No; the language of the Pope is too plain and too express to be twisted to suit Mr Elliott's purpose.., "The kingdom of Bohemia," says the bull, "has been infected with heresy; as if by a long contagion." There, was no break, no interruption in the prevalence of the "multiplex haeresis," with which it had been overrun. Now, after all this evidence, is it possible to believe that Christ's witnesses were slain in Bohemia, and that the appearance of Luther was their resurrection?
4. The speech so often quoted, is referred to by Mr Elliott, as altogether a triumphant oration just such an oration as might be expected to be made, when " they of the peoples, and kindreds, and nations, and tongues," were filled with exuberant gladness and delight, that all grounds of fear and uneasiness were for ever taken out of the way. But if this were so, could such expressions as the following he found in it? "What over all the world, alas! do I find, that does not afflict and overwhelm me with vehement grief?" "With what sorrow, with what groaning, with what sobbing, can I express the state of the sacred religious orders in other respects?" Is this a song of triumph? Is this the counterpart of the prophecy? " they that dwell on the earth, shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and Mid gifts one to another"
5. Hitherto I have gone on the supposition; that the term rendered in our version, "finish," might admit of the rendering proposed by Mr Elliott. But there is not the least warrant for the change he makes; there is no instance in which the verb uncompounded is clearly and undeniably used in the sense proposed. The plain natural meaning of the word is simply "to finish;" in this sense, it is used in all the other six instances, in which it occurs in the Apocalypse; and be it observed, it is the very word used by Christ himself, when on the cross he said, "It is finished," and bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. To our Lord's use of it on that occasion, there is a plain and manifest allusion in the case before us. There was a work which the Pather gave him to do, which was absolutely and exclusively his own. In his work as an atoning high priest, he was altogether alone; and of the people, there was none with him. But lie had another work conjoined with that, the work of a faithful and true witness for God. "To this end was I born," said he to Pilate, "and for this cause came I into the world, to bear witness unto the truth." In this part of his work, his own redeemed and faithful people are called upon to bear a part. When Christ's personal testimony was finished, that testimony was handed over to leis disciples, who, in bearing it, rejoiced with Paul, "to fill up that which was behind of the afflictions of Christ." As witnesses, they have the same work to do, and the same fate to expect, as he had, when he bore witless to the truth. Christ's personal ministry in Judea, and the literal Jerusalem, was just three years and a half; during all which time he bore the contradiction of sinners against himself; but till the end of that time, his enemies could not touch him, "because his hour was not yet come." The ministry of Christ's witnesses in the spititual Jerusalem, is also three years and a half; for three years and a half, are just 1260 days, the period of their prophesying; and like as it was with their Lord, so is it also with them, they are immortal till their work is done: The preaching, death, resurrection,. and, ascension of Christ, are obviously just the counterpart of the prophesying, slaughter, resurrection, and ascension of his witnesses. Now, it was at the end of the three years and a half of his personal ministry, that Christ was crucified, remained in the grave for three days, and then rose from the dead, and ascended up to heaven. So in like manner, it must be at the end of the three years and a half, at the conclusion of the 1260 days of their testimony, and not before, that his witnesses must be slain, lie dead for three days and a half, and then rise from the dead, and ascend up to heaven in a cloud.1 It is not without reason, however, that these three years and a half are included in the period of their prophesying; for like Abel "though dead, they yet speak." The very sight of their dead bodies, at that precise period, speaks trumpet-tongued, that thejudgment of Babylon is at hand.
2"Agebatur ver maxime in Bohemia de Calixtino-rum Hussitdrumque reliquis ecclesiae conciliandis." Raynald, xxxi. 29. Vindiciae p. 43.
3"Ita tamen ut singula ad concilium Lateranense referrentur." Raynald xxxi. 29.E Vindicia, p. 243.
4See his " Examination of Mr Elliott's theory," p. 216.
5"Utque illis tandem saluturem praebeas escam omnes a te expectant." Hard, ix, p. 1763, ap. Keith.
6Vindiciae p. 238
7This a very puzzling passage for Mr Elliott; and in his Vindiciae, he does what he can to reconcile it with his theory. How does he deal with it? He so translates it, as to leave upon the unwary reader the impression, that the orator refers not to the actual state of matters, when he spoke, but to a contingency, which might arise, and which was only in prospect. According to his translation, "the extirpation of sprouting heresies," is only one of the things that might at some future time need "salutary discussion or arrangement." But, what is the expression in the original? It is not "salutari indigeat;" but "salutari indigeat discussione." Who gave Mr Elliott a right to translate "indiget;" "it needs," as if it were "indigeat," "it may need?" This certainly is a liberty which no translator ought to take with his original.
8Vindiciae, p. 234.
9Waddington, Hist. of Church, p. 661
10Here also Mr Elliott mistranslates his original. The words of the bull are, "scire quae regiones haeresibus infectae sint." This he renders, as if the words had been " quae regiones haeresibus ingfiantur," "what regions may be infected with heresies." Now, I do not say that Mr Elliott has knowingly mistranslated these two passages, to suit his purpose; but I think it would be not amiss if he should explain, how he could fall into such mistakes.