The author of the "Seventh Vial" evidently labours under a very considerable confusion of idea with regard to the "two witnesses". He first makes them to be two churches, the Eastern and Western, and then the clergy of these two churches. "By the two olive trees", says he, "are meant plainly the pastors of these churches". Now what is this but the Puseyite, or Popish notion that the church is the clergy, and the clergy is the church? Are the laity then to be excluded from the rank of christ's witnesses? Were not Lord Cobham, and the Marquis of Argyle, as truly the witnesses of Christ, as Hugh Mackail, or Richard Cameron. But that they could not be, if the principle of the "Seventh Vial", be well founded, that the two olive trees, or witnesses are the "pastors" of the churches. The "Seventh Vial" thinks it to find a twofold character for these pastors, and with these pastors, and with this view, assign s them the two fold office of prophets and priests of the churches. "They performed the same office to these churches," he says, "which the prophets and priests performed to the Old Testament church".
Now with the words of Zechariah before him, where Joshua and Zerubbabel are manifestly indicated as the "two olive trees", this seems to me a very extraordinary mistake. That Mr. Elliott should overlook this plain intimation which this passage gives, that the grand duty of Christ's witnesses is to bear testimony for His headship alike over the church and over the state, is not so very wonderful; for it is obvious threat he knows nothing of the Scriptural relations of church and state to one another, or to Him who is head at once of all civil and ecclesiastical authority. But that is the author of the Seventh Vial, who is not ignorant of the Scriptural principles of Scotish evangelism, should allow himself to be led so far astray, as to assign ministers under the gospel, the two fold character of "prophet" and "priest", is certainly what could not have been expected. Surely the author does not need to be told, that under the Church dispensation, the pastor as such, has no priestly functions to perform, except such as are identical with those of the "prophet", or authorized expounder of the mind and will of God.
The attempt to make out both a priestly and prophetic character for the witnessing pastors, which the author gives from Vitringa, will not bear examination. "They preached the word," says he, "and they were employed in multiplying manuscript copies of the Holy Scriptures, so that they supplied the church with both the preached and the written word, answering, according to the ingenious and natural supposition of Vitringa, to the two golden pipes by which the two olive trees in Zechariah's vision emptied the golden oil out of themselves." The meaning of this seems to be, that as priests they preached, and as prophets, they transcribed the word of God. Now be it observed, the two olive trees or two anointed ones, empty the golden oil out of themselves during the whole period of the apostacy, the whole 1260 years. But for four hundred years, ever since the invention of printing, where has been the exercise on the part of the witnessing pastors of their prophetic office, the office to wit of "supplying the church with the written word?" During all that period, the prophetic office of the witnesses has been extinct, or if not, it has been exercised only by the printers.The printers have printed the word of God correctly enough without any special "unction from the Holy One." Why should it be thought that the witnesses need such an unction to enable them to transcribe it?
Mr. Elliott makes the dimensions of the measured temple very large indeed. Supposing that the temple, under the Christian dispensation, is exactly the same as under the Law, he includes the inner-court, or court of the Israelites, within the bounds which John was commanded to measure. His object in thus enlarging the spiritual temple, is obviously to get within its limits the unwieldy hierarchy of the Church of England, with all its corruptions, so faithfully portrayed by Mr. Baptist Noel. But how does he make it appear that the inner court was included in John's's measurement? why thus: John was commanded to measure "the temple, and the altar, and them that worshipped therein." Now, says Mr. Elliott, "the great brazen altar of sacrifice was in the open court next to the sanctuary. That court,therefore, was necessarily and expressly included".
Here there is certainly a stupendous mistake to be made by one who has written so much in opposition to the errors of Rome. What?! does not Mr. Elliott perceive, that his arguments proceeds on the Romish supposition, that there is still an altar of burnt-offering under the Gospel? But what says Paul? "Every priest, (i.e. every Jewish priest,) standeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man,after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever that are sanctified."
Under the Mosaic dispensation, from its necessary imperfection, there were two altars; the altar of burnt offering, and the altar of incense. Under the Christian, there is only one, the altar of incense -- that is, Christ himself in his own person, pleading the merits of his own finished work. Throughout the whole of the Apocalypse, wherever an altar is mentioned, it is "the altar", implying that there is one and only. Now, where stood the altar of incense? In the sanctuary or holy place, over against the ark of the covenant. That holy place, with all who worshipped in it John was commanded to measure.
All, else, whether they were in the inner or outer court, were treated as Gentiles. True Christians worship not only in the temple, but in the altar, that is in Christ, through whom they offer up spiritual sacrifices, the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, the "incense and the pure offering," which alone God now either requires or accepts. Through Christ they have boldness to enter into the "holiest of all"; and none but those who do enter in, have any part or lot with the church of God.
It has sometimes been felt as an objection against the view I have laid down in the body of the work, in regard to the duration of the prophesying of the witnesses in sackcloth, that at different periods since the Reformation, Christ's true and faithful servants have been favoured by the powers of the world. But this is very easily answered. We have a case in point in the history of Abraham and the Israelites. The period during which Abraham's seed was to be afflicted by strangers was stated by God to be 400 years. During the currency of these 400 years, there were to be times when strangers treated them very kindly, as for instance, when Joseph was ruler over all the land of Egypt, and his father and brethren were nourished by Pharaoh, in the land of Goshen. But these were only exceptions to the general treatment they met with; and therefore they were overlooked, when the Lord gave Abraham a prophetic glance of the fortunes of his prosperity. In like manner, when Christ describes the state of His witnesses, although His omniscient mind saw all the gleams of sunshine with which they should be visited, yet as these were but few and far between, He leaves them altogether out of view, and speaks of them as clothed in sackcloth during the whole 1260 years.
"The blazing tongue of the serpent". I am aware that in giving this sense to the words, in which the Lamb like beast from the earth is represented as "speaking like a dragon," I am departing from the universal opinion of all past commentators. But let the reader judge if I have done so without reason. It has been usually supposed that there was a contrast drawn between the look of the beast and its language: but the words of prophecy indicate no such contrast. It is not said that the beast "had two horns like a lamb but spake as a dragon," as it seems invariably to have been read; but that he "had two horns like a lamb, and spake as a dragon." Now, how does a dragon speak? Our commentators have evidently allowed themselves, in this matter, to be misled by the fabulous notions of dragons, prevalent in the Middle Ages, when they were represented as equipped with wings and vomiting flames. Of course, such dragons, if supposed to speak, might be expected to speak most ferociously. But is this the Scriptural notion of a dragon, and the speech of a dragon? According to the Word of God, a dragon is just a large serpent; and in the only authentic case, in which we ever heard of a dragon speaking, its speech was very different nature from that usually attributed to the "dragon words" of the lamb like beast of the earth. Instead of speaking with fury, its speech was most gentle, subtle, and insinuating; and like as "the serpent beguiled Eve", so it is evidently intimated, that this beast, by its fair speech, as well as its gentle aspect, would mislead mankind. It is said, accordingly, verse 14, that is "decieveth them that dwell on the earth."
There is no doubt that the popes have often spoken in most lordly style; but that is obviously not the idea conveyed here: and, indeed, it is one of the most remarkable characteristics of the Church of Rome which the beast in question represents, that its language, even when perpetrating the greatest cruelties has been soft and gentle. Thus the inquisitors of Spain, in handing over heretics to the secular arm to be burned, used to entreat that the civil magistrate would deal mercifully" with the poor heretics. Thus the Popish Bishop of chichester, in sending the Protestant martyrs to bloody Bonner, - who, he well knew, after making them, as he brutally boasted, "a foot longer" on the rack, would consign them to the flames, - hypocritically stated, that he sent them "to be dealt with according to his fatherly and charitable discretion!"The "words of the dragon" are plainly not fierce, but cunningly and deceitful words of beguiling men with all deceivableness of unrighteousness."
The beast reffered to above, has now conclusivley come to an end. The Roman Republic has abolished the two swords, signified by its "two horns;" and of course, the Church of Rome henseforth appears under another emblem. Foreign bayonets may possibly endeavour to restore temporal power to the head of the Roman Church, but the deep rooted feeling not of Rome only, but of Italy, shows that the time is past for temporal and spiritual power to be loged in the same hands. Any attempt made to force the Romans to resign the political power they have now grasped, may have the effect of changing the Moderate into the Red Republic; but will never reconsile them to a temporal government, which it is eveident they abhor