Issued By Mr. Gaussen In His Book Entitled “Daniel The Prophet”29
The form of this pamphlet sufficiently indicates that I have no intention of replying in a detailed manner to Mr. Gaussen’s book, nor of discussing the points on which there are differences with him. I do intend to shew that the bases of his system have no solidity, no foundation whatever. I believe there has been up to a certain point an accomplishment of the prophecies in question in the ages which have just expired. Circumstances morally analogous may be found in them, or at least systems and an activity animated by the principle which will have its entire development only in the last days. The word authorises me to judge thus when it says that there were already many Antichrist in the time of John.
I believe also that the irruption of the barbarians furnished the elements of that which by and by is to be the accomplishment of certain prophecies as to the Roman Empire; so that I have no desire to combat ideas a long time since spread abroad, and now reproduced, discussed, and embellished by Mr. Gaussen. But since the system of [Bp.] Newton and his successors, there have been different views published on several important points. If these views are not false, the reproduction by Mr. Gaussen of the old doctrine of Newton and others is but a step backward, a retrograde course calculated to turn aside souls from light that God has given.
However, though I do not accept the old system, I should not have been drawn in to contest its solidity by the mere fact that people have sought to support it with new arguments; I should have preferred to unfold the truth directly. Here are the passages which induced me to shew in few words the nullity of the reasonings which Mr. Gaussen has laid down as the foundation of the capital points of his system.
“Now it was very natural, as you will understand, dear children, that at the reading of such a lecture, the Christians of Thessalonica should imagine that the return of Jesus in the clouds was very near, that our gathering together unto Him (as St. Paul expresses it) might happen during their life.”
With respect to this expression the most complete confusion is found in the ideas of Mr. Gaussen between the presenting of the Son of man to the Ancient of days, and the coming of Jesus from heaven to earth. The passage of Daniel 7 is applied by Mr. Gaussen, sometimes to the one, sometimes to the other, of these two things. (See vol. 3, pages 24, 26, 29-31, 157, 162, 165.) The confusion of the coming of Jesus in the clouds with the rapture of the church is also found in the book; so that these three things, the presenting of the Son of man to the Ancient of days, the rapture of the church to meet Jesus in the air, and the appearing of Jesus with all the saints to judge the world, are confounded together by Mr. Gaussen. The practical effect of the confusion of these last two events is shewn in page 86, and also in 172 and 173. Here is a part of this last passage. “Yes, if the coming of Jesus filled with so much emotion a soul so pure, a man of so many prayers, a prophet so holy, to whom the angel said, ‘O Daniel, a man greatly beloved’—if the great Daniel saw this day with so much concern, twenty centuries before the event, what must it be for those who shall be there personally, who shall hear the trumpet, and see its brightness?”
Is this the Christian’s hope? Nothing more opposite. I pray the reader to pay heed: it is of all importance for the system we are examining. What a difference between this language and that of the Saviour: “I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also.” We shall “go to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” “Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then also shall ye appear with him in glory.” “We know that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” “The Spirit and the bride say, Come.” “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” “Our conversation is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” “When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe… in that day.” But, however sad the pages of Mr. Gaussen may be, I bless God that they lay bare for him who loves the Lord the system he is supporting.
‘Hence it is that the apostle, learning that in fact such was their mistake, hastens to write a second epistle to them, in which he tells us the first words this dear child has just read to us’: “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.” ‘Here again, dear children, a word of explanation. The day of Christ is always very near for each believer, since we are all at once transported thither at the hour of our death, time thenceforth being nothing for us, and a thousand years less than a day. But for the church it is not so. For the church this day of Christ is at a distance; and even in this sense the day was certainly many ages off from Paul and his contemporaries. You will understand then that this false notion of the Thessalonian Christians (who believed the church to be only a few days from the return of their Master) could easily, as St. Paul told them, shake their minds and sadly trouble their faith.’
Pay attention to this expression [“transported thither at the hour of death”], which neutralises wholly the force of the phrase,” The day of Christ.” It is also found again in page 173. Assuredly, at the hour of death, the soul is not transported to the judgment of the habitable world, which is the scriptural sense of the words “day of Christ” (or “of the Lord”). I know not whether this goes along with the sad opinion of some Christians that the soul sleeps at death. Because it is said in speaking of the death of a man living in this world that he fell asleep, they have concluded that the soul sleeps in the other world. But these two things have no connection whatever. The language of the Lord as to Lazarus, “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth,” proves that it is only a question of his bodily death—an expression of which He made use to explain it to His disciples. Were this idea true, the Christian would not be transported to the day of Christ. You have only to take a concordance and search the phrase, “day of the Lord,” and you will soon see that it is God’s judgment on the inhabitants of the earth, whether partial or final. Now for the execution of this judgment Christ must appear. But, when He “shall appear, we also shall appear with him in glory.” “Those who are with him are called, chosen, and faithful.” “The armies which were in heaven followed him.” Thus, we shall be in the full enjoyment of glory before the day of Christ. All is confusion in the teaching of this book on this point.
Besides, Mr. Gaussen tells us that the reading of the first inspired letter of the apostle made the Thessalonians fall into an error. I will not characterise this reasoning: but there is no room at all for such a supposition. The apostle attributes this error (which besides was quite another thing from what Mr. Gaussen says) to deceivers and to a pretended letter. Mr. Gaussen has here abandoned the version of Lausanne, which renders the sense correctly (“the day of Christ was there”), to adopt the word “at hand.” Now the Greek word (enestecke) is always, without exception, employed in the New Testament for a thing present, and even in contrast with things to come. The translation which says “is there” (present) is good; that which says “is at hand” is false.
The deceivers troubled the Thessalonians by affirming that the day of the Lord was come—probably (see 2 Thess. 1) taking advantage of the violent persecutions which had fallen on the church in Thessalonica, and certainly pretending that they had inspiration, the word, and even a letter of the apostle’s, to confirm what they alleged. The apostle gives two reasons wherefore that terrible day could not be there. The first is our gathering together to Christ. The rapture of the church had not yet taken place. We shall be in heaven before that day arrives—a truth taught in the clearest way in the word, to which we shall recur. The second is, that the object of the judgment was not yet there, and consequently the judgment could not possibly take place.
Here are proofs in support of what I have said. First, it is certain that the sense is not that the day is at hand, but that it is arrived. Here are all the passages of the New Testament where the word in question is employed: Romans 8:39, where it is translated “things present”; 1 Corinthians 3:22, “things present”; 1 Corinthians 7:26, “present necessity”; Galatians 1:4, “this present evil age”; Hebrews 9:9, “time then present”; and 2 Timothy 3:1, “shall come” (i.e., shall be present or there). These passages prove, so as to leave no doubt whatever, that the sense of the word is “present” in contrast with “things to come.” Besides, the Greek for “at hand” is another word. Mr. Gaussen in other places approves of the version of Lausanne: why has he abandoned it here?
Moreover, in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 the true force of the word is certainly “we beseech you by” and not “as concerning.” The English version, that of Luther, that of Geneva in 1605, Desmatet’s Bible, and the Vulgate, have rendered it thus. It is true that huper in certain cases signifies “as concerning”; that is, it has almost the sense of peri. But it is unquestionable that, when it is employed with words of prayer and request, its regular meaning in Greek is “by,” “for the sake of.” No person who is at all familiar with the Greek tongue, or who is willing to take the trouble of using a good dictionary, would deny it. Here then is the passage in its true force: “Now we beg you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as [if it were] by us, as that the day of the Lord is present. Let not any one deceive you in any manner, because [it will not be] unless the apostasy have first come and the man of sin have been revealed,” etc. That is, the apostle gives two reasons why they should not believe that the day of the Lord was come: first, the rapture of the saints is not yet; and secondly, the object of the judgment is not revealed. It is this passage which, twenty years ago, made me understand the rapture of the saints before— perhaps a considerable time before—the day of the Lord (that is, before the judgment of the living.)
I add what is found at bottom of the last column of the Pentables. “After Babylon has been burnt by the ten kings, and the ten kings themselves, the beast and the false prophet have been judged in their turn, then comes the first resurrection; the saints reign with Christ a thousand years.” Then again the third column, under the title of “Eternal Monarchy,” says: “The stone, after smiting the image, becomes a great mountain, and fills the whole earth”; and on the mountain, in the engraving which accompanies this passage, we find inscribed— “the church.”
Such are the passages which, with many other similar ones, have induced me to bring out the utter want of foundation which distinguishes Mr. Gaussen’s book. I do not reason upon the passages themselves. It is evident that the object of the first is to hinder souls from waiting for the Lord, to destroy the waiting for Him, as a practical truth. The present and practical waiting for the Lord, according to Mr. Gaussen, was nothing but a false notion of the Thessalonians: “For the church, this day of Christ is at a distance.” Paul had said, “We, the living.” And it was quite natural they should be led into error by the inspired epistle which he had written to them.
It is true that those words “we, the living” had naturally this effect, to lead them to await the Saviour continually. That this was an evil is the very thing I question, for they had “turned to God” “to wait for his Son from- heaven.” But my only answer to such reasoning is this: It is certain that it is not to this that the apostle attributes their error; neither was it this error which he feared for them. Whatever might be their error, the apostle attributes it to a source totally distinct from his own epistle, namely, to the seduction of other persons, who alleged inspiration, and pretended to have the apostle’s authority in a letter, he says, “as [if it were] by us”; so that the real source of the error was not the true epistle of the apostle, nor his words, but those of some seducer and a pretended epistle. Mr. Gaussen attributes their error to the first epistle, which, he says, would naturally enough produce it. The apostle attributes it to a false epistle.
Mr. Gaussen mistakes again when he says that time is no longer an object with those who are asleep in Jesus. The souls under the altar say, “How long, O Lord, dost thou not avenge …?” “And it was said unto them that they should rest yet for a little season.”
But I will not notice all that is to be found in this passage: it contains nearly as many ungrounded assertions as it does phrases. My object in quoting it is to shew why I make these remarks. It is this: one main design of Mr. Gaussen’s book is to make people believe that the day of the Lord is at a distance for the church, by varnishing over a very old system, and carefully confounding the hope of the church with the day of Christ. I confess I do not understand the difference between this and “My lord delayeth his coming.” If there be any, I should be very happy to learn. Let us come to the proofs which the author gives of his system.
With the design I have pointed out, Mr. Gaussen seeks to shew that it is a question of papal succession in the little horn of Daniel 7 and in other passages. We shall examine in a few words the grounds he lays down for the support of his proposition. First of all, he will have it that it is a theologian king. It is on this he greatly insists, and, in effect, it is the main point of his system. Where is the proof of it? He thinks “to change times and laws.” But why should the one who changes the times and the laws, be a theologian, or even an ecclesiastic? Jeroboam did change the times and the law; he was not a theologian. The French Revolution abolished Christianity and established decades in the place of weeks. Was that theology? This proof, which is the basis of his whole system, is no proof at all; it is absolutely worthless.
Moreover, to demonstrate that the little horn is papacy, he insists on this, that it continues to remain little as regards territory, whereas the ten others are great. It is the political side of the character of popery which he makes to be one of his proofs. Now, according to Mr. Gaussen, that little horn destroys or brings down three others, that is, three of the great ones, and appropriates to himself their territory (2, pages 26, 27); how then does it remain little? The proof that the passage applies to the civil character of the pope is null and void; it destroys itself.
Another main point for Mr. Gaussen is, that the twelve hundred and sixty days indicate a period horribly long, necessarily twelve hundred and sixty years. It is evident that his whole system is at stake. He repeats, even to satiety, that the time is horribly long. Now I open my Bible, and I find that, speaking of the twelve hundred and sixty days, it says, Satan, being cast out of heaven, comes down, “having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time”; that is, the Spirit of God tells me the very contrary of that which forms the basis of Mr. Gaussen’s system. In another passage it is said that “except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; this is said of that which, on our Saviour’s own authority, refers to the twelve hundred and sixty days which follow the setting up of the abomination of desolation.
The reader will observe that I only touch upon the main points of the author’s system. The moral or civil character, and the duration of the horn, are the points on which his whole system hangs. However, I have scarcely found in the book any assertion which has more foundation than those I have just pointed out. He says that the fathers agree with him. In what? Mr. Gaussen believes that the horn is a succession of persons. This point is necessary to his system. The fathers believed that it meant an individual; and this utterly destroys his system. The fathers believed that the days must be days; Mr. Gaussen believes them to be years.30 They believed that the end was near; Mr. Gaussen believes the contrary. They believed that the man of sin would give himself out to be the Christ, not his vicar; two things which are incompatible, whatever Mr. Gaussen may say. They believed that he would sit in the temple of God, which he would raise up again in Jerusalem; Mr. Gaussen believes quite the contrary.
In a word, the principles of the fathers utterly subvert Mr. Gaussen’s whole system in the points on which he insists, and on which he differs from the system he opposes. They only agree with him on the points which his adversaries admit as he does. All believe that the fourth beast is the Roman empire. All believe that the ten toes of the feet are ten kingdoms. All believe that the Antichrist will continue till the coming of Christ. The questions between Mr. Gaussen and the opposite system are these: Is the Antichrist an individual who will have dominion literally twelve hundred and sixty days at the end of times? or is it a succession of individuals, which will last twelve hundred and sixty years? Now it is this last proposition which is absolutely necessary to the Gaussen system (or, rather, that is his system). The fathers maintain the other, that is, the opposite of his. Their system and that of Mr. Gaussen are incompatible; they are antagonistical on his own avowal.
Besides, the word says that ten kingdoms are to arise out of that empire. But Mr. Gaussen tells us of enemies who attack the empire and take possession of it. They do not in any way arise out of the Roman empire. If one would consider them at a later period, when they have become kingdoms, his system of dates is subverted. I would here add that his reasoning on the date of the appearing of the little horn is also without any force. He says (vol. 3:15) that it cannot have appeared later than the year 711, later than the time when the last three of these ten kingdoms were plucked up by the roots. But this proves nothing, because, according to his system, the horns which were plucked up by the roots have always been succeeded by others, so that there might always be ten (vol. 2, page 190), and thus, at any moment, it might have plucked up by the roots three of them, without its being among the ten first kings who divided the empire. And so true is this, that the horns which Mr. Gaussen believes to have been plucked up by the little horn were all the successors of others which had already been plucked up. (See vol. 2, page 189.) This reasoning, then, has no force whatever; for if the little horn could subdue three of them, when two were already succeeded by others, it could do it when this had even happened ten times. The date then is worthless.
Moreover, enemies who divide the empire are not kingdoms which arise out of the empire.
Mr. Gaussen insists on this, that a horn is always a succession of kings; but it is no such thing. A horn is a power; sometimes, it is true, a succession of kings who have a moral unity. But this expression is applied to Christ. He is called a horn elsewhere.31 He has seven horns on his head, the perfection of power; assuredly there is no question of a succession in this case. It seems to me clear enough that, when it is said that the great horn is the first king (Dan. 8:21), the application to Alexander personally is the thought of the Spirit. In 2 Thessalonians 2:9 the words “whose coming,” an expression by which the lawless one is put in personal contrast with the Lord, shew clearly enough that the object in question is an individual. However that may be, the assertion that a horn is always a succession of. kings is without foundation.
Mr. Gaussen is anxious to shew that the true church is an invisible church. Such is, according to him, the true character and nature of the church of God, of the body of Christ.32 What is the proof of this? Here it is— “It worships (vol. 3, page 257), as we have seen, in the inner temple”: that is, that the state of believers, six hundred years after Jesus Christ (when, according to Mr. Gaussen, the falling away was already come, “the great apostasy, the all but universal apostasy of the Roman world,” the place in question in the passage; when the little horn had established its power; when God had given up the holy city to be trodden under foot by the profane)— that that state, I repeat, is the expression and the proof of the true character of the normal state of the church of God. How truly sad is all this!
Moreover, the question is, for Mr. Gaussen’s system, to apply Revelation 12 to the history of Christendom, and particularly to the time of Constantine. How does he make use of that passage? “At the time of the great red dragon, it (the church of the one hundred and forty-four thousand) was to bring forth a man-child, that is to say, a people politically and corporately united as a nation, and victorious over their adversaries … when two out of the three emperors who divided the empire between themselves, Licinius and Constantine, published at Milan their edict of toleration, then, at last, did the woman bring forth that man-child, which was soon to rule heathenism with a rod of iron, and who is one day to govern all peoples. Nevertheless,” etc. What can be said of a system which is obliged to rest upon such a use of the word, or rather, which is obliged to alter it in such a manner? The reader must remember that the passage of Psalm 2, which is here alluded to, is one of the most striking prophecies of the glory of Christ, when He shall rule all nations in glory, which the church is to share with Him (Rev. 2:26, 27) in the age to come. And they turn this into an edict of toleration, “a people politically united”!
The reader must also remember that, according to the word, the “child was caught up unto God and to his throne.” But even with that alteration the passage cannot yet have such an application; it must be changed. The passage says, “who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron”—one sole idea, for which Mr. Gaussen substitutes,” who is soon to rule heathenism with a rod of iron,” and “who is one day to govern all peoples” —two distinct acts. This distinction, which separates the government of all peoples from the rod of iron, deprives that government of the character which the word has given to it; and, besides, introduces two objects of the prophecy where there is only one, and two dates where there is only one. To authorise this last change Mr. Gaussen adds, “one day,” giving these words as a quotation. And, mark it well, all this was absolutely necessary to the author’s system; because “to govern all peoples” cannot in any way be applicable to the period to which he applies the rod of iron, according to the explanation he gives of it.
Constantine accomplished the judgment, of which Mr. Gaussen speaks, in the same year that the edict of toleration was published; whereas the people, politically united, has never to this day governed all peoples. Quite the contrary. The twelve hundred and sixty years of apostasy awaited it. According to Mr. Gaussen “the triumph was only for a time.” Can one listen for a moment to such a system and to such reasoning? And, I repeat, all this cleaves to the root of the system. These are not accessories which one may lay aside, while preserving the system in the main. It is the system itself which is in question, and the system is found to be incompatible with the word: it mutilates and changes scripture. If one wishes to have an instance of the reasoning, one has only to read pages 257 and 258, where the author presents the Roman empire as sending forth the barbarians against the true church; but this again was necessary to his system of interpretation.
With respect to the computation of times, we see (pages 68 to 76 of vol. 3) an examination of Daniel 7:12. In page 72 Mr. Gaussen says, “You will presently see that we can also, as to the little horn, draw a conclusion which will give us the tenth feature of its description. And here is that conclusion: it is, that its duration will be very long, horribly long.” Thus (page 73) we see that the tenth feature is the duration of its life.
Now what is the proof of this capital point? It is that “a time and a time” form seven hundred and twenty years, that is, that the interval from the foundation of the Babylonian empire to that of the Roman empire; or, more exactly, a time is a season (that is to say, five hundred and forty years, taking a zeman for the half of a hiddan). But if it be more exact33 to say a season, and to take this word as the half of a year, it is clear that the other sense is not exact. But why do I use so many words? Mr. Gaussen makes use of the same phrase to mean seven hundred and twenty, and five hundred and forty years; one of these figures giving, according to him, the duration of the three empires, reckoning from the foundation of the first; the other, that same duration, taking as a date the seige of Jerusalem. This has the appearance of confirming one of these applications of the passage by the other; but in reality they contradict one another. If one be true, the other is false; for if the phrase means seven hundred and twenty, it cannot mean five hundred and forty. For the rest, it is certain that the word is not that which is elsewhere translated by “a time,” and consequently that the computation is entirely false according to the author’s system. He acknowledges that the duration of the three empires has been seven hundred and twenty years. But according to that interpretation of the word which is the most exact according to him, one hundred and eighty years are wanting in the passage which he applies to that duration; that is to say, that the passage is not applicable to it at all. There is nothing here but a false translation to support the author’s conclusion as to the duration of the little horn; and what is the proof that zeman means the half of a time? There is none. Zeman signifies a fixed appointed time. Ostervald translates the two words together by “for a certain time.” I have no doubt this is the true sense, and for my part I am fully assured that it is no question of the duration of the empires, but of their existence after the cessation of their imperial power. This is the sense—very evident and simple— according to the translation Mr. Gaussen approves, and which I believe to be true. Dominion is taken away from the other beasts, but a prolongation of life was granted to them; whereas the life of the fourth beast was taken away at the same time as its dominion. The beast itself was destroyed. This was not the case with the others: they still subsisted, but not ae empires. But this I say by the way.
I leave what I have said to the judgment of the reader who. is taught of God. What I have to do with is the reasoning of Mr. Gaussen, who finds in the same words the figures seven hundred and twenty, and five hundred and forty—a reasoning which destroys itself, and which acknowledges that the first figure is merely the result of a false translation. And this avowal overthrows the use he makes of the passage he is treating of, since, historically, one hundred and eighty years are wanting, so as to fill up the interval, the era of Nabonassar and Augustus. Thus every basis fails as to the duration of the horn.
Moreover, what Mr. Gaussen tells us appears to me to rest merely on a false idea he has formed of the use of the word “season” in English. It is used, indeed, in that language, as in French, for winter, summer, etc.; but in English it has another sense, which is much more vague. It is used to designate any period; when taken alone, it is rather used for a short period. With an adjective it receives the sense of the adjective. The English translation used it in this passage so as to leave the thing undetermined, as Ostervald (French) did. I do not, however, think that Mr. Gaussen would maintain that zeman signifies a season of the year: otherwise, his whole reasoning is without force. But what can one think of a system founded on a computation (the basis of all, mark it well; for these twelve hundred and sixty years are essential to his system) in which the same word is taken in two senses which destroy one another, and one of which Mr. Gaussen acknowledges to be false, whereas the one which he considers to be true makes an error of one hundred and eighty years, out of seven hundred and twenty, in the period on which he founds himself, as being, according to him, historically fixed? The fact is that, in Hebrew, the word has not the sense of any period whatever.34
The distinction made, page 62, between “the duration of the persecution,” and “the end of the power of the beast,” is worthless, since it is said (v. 21, 22) that the horn is to make war with the saints and prevail against them, until the Ancient of days come and judgment be given to the saints of the Most High. Now I do not think that Mr. Gaussen will pretend that the empire subsists after the coming of the Ancient of days, and after judgment is given to the saints of the Most High. Thus, a simple comparison with this passage is enough to destroy another important part of this system. The persecutions terminate by the coming of the Ancient of days and judgment given to the saints. Besides, Mr. Gaussen formally contradicts himself on this point. In pages 181, 182, he applies the verses we have just quoted in the same sense which our reasoning attributes to them; he makes out “that the church is oppressed, until at last the time arrives when the monarchy of Jesus Christ and His saints commences on earth.” In pages 181, 182, he says as much of the little horn, “that ungodly power which is to prevail against the church until the end of times.” See also vol. 2:4, the same thing. In vol. 3, page 234, Mr. Gaussen tells us, “It now then remains for us to see it again in chapter 13, under the decem-regal form, and in chapter 17, under the democratic form. It will be the time of the little horn.” Now in chapter 13 the duration of the decem-regal beast is “to continue forty and two months.” The little horn makes war with the saints until the Ancient of days come and (Daniel 7:25, if the words are applied to the saints) they are given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of times. Mr. Gaussen tries to make a distinction between “made war with the saints, and prevailed against them,” and “shall be given into his hand” —an unwarrantable distinction, as we shall see, but which, at all events, does not remove the contradiction which I point out here. One has only to compare pages 62, 181, and 182. The distinction was necessary for his democratic beast, but it is evident that the little horn and the ten-horned beast go together and perish together.
It is well to pay attention to another thing; it is this, that the most important possible point is treated in the author’s system as an admitted truth, as an uncontested principle, namely, that it is the church which is in question in these prophecies. Now many persons believe that it is a question of a Jewish remnant, and they quote the word to prove it. This is a main point. Mr. Gaussen does not take the trouble to discuss it. He keeps on this point an absolute silence. It is necessary to his system that it be the church; he cannot prove it, and he asserts it without any proof. On this subject Mr. Gaussen lays down a principle that is entirely false, namely, that God is leading the world with a view to the church. It is Christ and His glory which are the object of the counsels of God. The church will share that glory, and thus it is also included in the counsels of God.
But the difference is complete; because, if Christ be the object, the Jews, whose head and sovereign He will be, are the object of the government of God with respect to the world, and even of the arrangement of nations. “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance,” Deut. 32:8, 9. Now, this revealed object of God’s arrangements on earth is left aside, and the church, a heavenly people, is put in the place of Israel by Mr. Gaussen.
It will be understood that this changes everything in prophecy. For instance, the greater part of the prophecies apply to a time when Israel is more or less owned in their land. All this is left aside, and finds no place in Mr. Gaussen’s system. Now, when Israel is owned, and when it is a question of that people, the church, where there is neither Jew nor Gentile, is necessarily out of the scene. It is no longer a question of length of years, but of “a short work” of God upon the earth, in days, of which it is said, “Except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved” —a passage where the Saviour Himself directs our attention to Daniel and to passages where it is a question of the twelve hundred and sixty days. This therefore goes to the root of the question on the point which is disputed between the two great schools. Mr. Gaussen entirely avoids it; even in his preface he already speaks of the coming sufferings of the church as of an admitted truth. The idea he has formed to himself of the church, becomes therefore a very important point to examine. Now, having left aside the Jews as objects of God’s counsels, there remains in his ideas on the church a confusion one can hardly understand.
Thus volume 2, page 2: “The first siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar is the beginning of the captivity of the church under the first monarchy.” Here the rebellious and perverse Jews under the judgment of God form the church. Page 4, he supposes that in Daniel it is a question of the destinies of the church. No proof is given. Page 12, “God was pleased to reveal to Daniel the history of the church.” Here again no proof. In page 13, he makes of this a point which must always be borne in mind. Page 23, “When in succession He caused the kingdoms of Moab, of Ammon, of Idumea, of Damascus, of Assyria, to prosper and to fall, it was for His church.” If I open my Bible, I find it is for the Jews and for His own glory. Here it is said, “the church,” without proof and without taking into account that which is in the word.
“When He exalted Egypt to the highest degree of splendour in the days of Joseph, and afterwards brought it into the Red Sea in the days of Moses, it was for His church.” Here also, we well know, it was for Israel.
Now, this confounding of the church with Israel, while deeply hurtful in spiritual things, becomes capital in prophecy; and all the questions which Mr. Gaussen treats of are connected with the solution of that one; because, if Israel means Israel, then the prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel which he quotes have an application which he does not admit, and his system of interpretation, save a few analogies, is false from beginning to end. However precious the type which is found there as to redemption, does anyone believe that Israel was the church at the Red Sea? or that the fall of Moab or Ammon was for the church? Is it not evident that Mr. Gaussen ought to have proved that passages which speak positively of Israel, in the clearest and most simply historical terms, refer to the church and not to Israel, and the more so because a whole system of interpretation hangs on that question? All this Mr. Gaussen considers as admitted, whereas it is just that which is questioned.
Volume 2, page 50. The mountain, out of which the stone is cut without hands, is there “to figure the church of God, which will end by filling the whole earth.” Here, first of all, the mountain out of which the stone is taken is confounded with the one which fills the earth, and both are called the church, not only without proof, but in spite of the passage itself, which says that “in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom.” Now it is certain that in no sense whatever was the church set up, nor began to increase, “in the days of these kings.”
I pass on to volume 3.35 Page 3, “The little horn,” he says, “is fatal to the church.” No proof that it is so to the church. The importance of this application of divers passages to the church will be understood, when I shew how often, in a part of the third volume, that application finds a place in the explanation, which, in effect, depends on the fact of knowing whether it is a question of the church—the point which is supposed from the beginning.
The reader will find this application of prophecy to the church in pages 16, 23, 28, and 29. In page 42 we find again applied to the church Psalm 74, which evidently speaks of the Jews, of the taking of Jerusalem, and of the havoc made in the temple on that occasion. See again pages 58, 59, 171, 181, 189, 191, 201, and 207. I do not go farther, because after that page Mr. Gaussen enters upon the explanation of the Apocalypse, and if I occupied myself with that, I should have to enter upon the ground of discussion, instead of shewing how the principal parts are supposed without any proof in support of them.
Now to omit the Jews, and apply all to the church, is to introduce complete confusion in prophecy. To do so, without discussing that point, is to build up a system without any real foundation. We shall see by some other instances, how few there are that are solid, among the things which Mr. Gaussen lays down as bases.
Already, in page 2, Mr. Gaussen supposes, without proof, that which is in question: “An ungodly personage, whose reign, of itself, will last longer than that of the three first monarchies put together.” Page 4, when he says, “our days,” he again supposes that the little horn forms a part of the history of the past. This is the thing in question.
We have already called attention to the assertion that “the horn” is a kind of theologian, since it pretends to “change times and laws” —the basis of all, which he always supposes to be proved after this passage; whereas the proof he gives of it is absolutely nothing.
Pages 6 and 7. That the prophecy may apply to the papal system, the writer makes a supposition as to the extent of the evil, without a word being said by Daniel as to that extent. Page 7. The horn is called a spiritual power, which is the point in question, and that without proof. We have already spoken of the dimensions of that horn; we have only this to notice as to the chronology, that is, that to present, in order to fix a date, the ravages which overturned the empire, as being kingdoms which rise up out of that empire, is anything but satisfactory; and this is the more evident because, in the Apocalypse, the ten horns receive authority one hour (that is during the same period)36 with the beast.
Page 10. Mr. Gaussen says: “The ten first horns presented themselves to Daniel all at the same time, already great, and threatening, all in the midst of the foaming sea, in contrast with the little horn which came up afterwards.” How can that be, if, as he says, it is a question of the invasions which begin in a.d. 412 and end in 526? How comes it that the little horn comes up in silence and under the most innocent, the most “modest,” appearances, etc., if (page 22) it is to fill with noise thirteen centuries (that is during the whole course of its existence)—if (page 27) it is always distinguished from all the other kings by its speaking great things?
What proof (page 11) that it takes its place “under the safeguard of the imperial power?” This is true of the pope; but what does Daniel say about it? We have already spoken of its increase—another main point, and of the proof of its date (pages 13-15).
Page 21. What proof that the horn receives its first power from the authority of the Roman emperors? If it is because it was on the head of the beast, that always remains true: it will not be only its first power. What Mr. Gaussen says is true of the pope; Daniel says nothing about it. Page 24. “Putting thus its own traditions.” This suits the pope; nothing that relates to it is to be found in Daniel. “He will excite all the other kings of the Roman earth against the people of God.” What proof? “It must be so” —no proof even that the horns do it. It suits the pope; that is all. Page 35. Observe that Mr. Gaussen places the angels on the thrones, a thing unknown to the Bible, because if the church was seated there (a thing that is certain through the Bible), all his system would fall to the ground, since, according to him, the judgment is executed before the resurrection of the church. Now this last doctrine is totally inadmissible according to the word, as we shall shew; but if it were true, as Mr. Gaussen pretends, the church, in effect, could not yet be on the thrones. That is why he puts the angels there.
Pages 58-60. All that is contained in these pages is nothing but suppositions as to what the horn may be with the view of applying it to the pope, without there being found a single word which refers to it. The prophet’s explanation tells us that the horn “shall speak great words against the Most High,” and, as it appears, it is the horn37 that has dominion at the end. All that Mr. Gaussen says on this point, “We must suppose,” applies no doubt to the pope, but it is quite different from what is found in Daniel.
In page 101 observe the conclusion drawn. “Before the man of sin was manifested, and, consequently, before the Thessalonians could see Jesus Christ coming on the clouds.” Now it is certain through the word, that the Thessalonians, when Jesus shall appear, will appear with Him, will come with Him, because they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful. There is at the same time the confounding of the mystery of iniquity and the man of sin.
Page 93. What is the proof that the man of sin is the little horn? It is included in these words: “That is to say,” which are very convenient for the discussion of a main point. And then the children “will have well understood that as to the man of sin, it is a succession of men of sin”—the least probable thing possible, since his coming is spoken of, as well as the coming of Christ. And where is the proof? Alas! one must be content with this: “Nothing is similar.” Now of this I very much stand in doubt, and this is the reason why: I find a false prophet who bears a much greater resemblance to this man of sin; and then there is also the beast that has dominion, and in Daniel it is the dominion of the little horn that is taken away at the end.
But I do not discuss here; I am shewing that the main points are nothing but suppositions without proof. I have spoken of the fathers, and shewn that on the very point which, by the avowal of Mr. Gaussen himself, is the main point, they are all entirely against him. I add here (see page 125) that a person cannot be vicar and rival at the same time. The fathers say that the Antichrist would hardly shew himself as being the Christ. For my part, I have hardly a doubt about it; but, at all events, they do not say what Mr. Gaussen makes them say (page 125), “the pretended vicar.” They had about it quite a different idea, as may be seen by the quotations given by Mr. Gaussen himself. But the expression suited the pope.
Page 187. Mr. Gaussen calls Daniel 2 the prophetical map of the world, and tells us that the horn cannot merely have a very short duration at the end of times, because that idea stands in contradiction to the map of the world. The revelation made to Nebuchadnezzar says nothing about the little horn, and therefore discussions as to its date cannot affect the map of the world. That it may have come up soon after the ten, as Mr. Gaussen affirms, is a possible thing, but Daniel says nothing about it. We have already examined what is advanced to shew the accuracy of the dates adopted by Mr. Gaussen; we found it to be without foundation, and we saw that the ten horns, in the Apocalypse, receive authority at the same time as the beast, instead of overthrowing the latter. If the predictions of Daniel refer to the time when the Jews are on the scene, all Mr. Gaussen’s system is thoroughly overthrown. Now the Spirit says so several times in the latter chapters of that prophet (see Dan. 10:14; chap. 11:14, 30, 31; chap. 12:1, 7, 11), where it is a question of those numbers; and the Lord, in speaking of Jerusalem, refers us to the prophecies of Daniel, where those numbers are given us. I do not dwell at greater length on this; but one may see the extreme carelessness with which Mr. Gaussen quotes the word (page 205). It is a thing truly inconceivable.
Page 209. The rule as to the number seven, namely, that “it always exhausts the history of future times,” is not exact. The seven vials, for instance, exhaust the wrath of God; but the judgment of the beast comes afterwards; for the marriage is after the destruction of Babylon, and the destruction of the beast after the marriage; and nothing shews that the seven churches go on until the millennium. The Apocalypse declares that all the prophetical parts are “after these.”
Page 211. I find very sad what is said of Sardis. After Rome (Thyatira), Mr. Gaussen tells us, Sardis is the church which is reserved from the midst of the darkness of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; that is, it is the same period as Thyatira, where were some of those, whose last works were better than the first.38 This remnant, reserved, according to the election of grace, is, according to Mr. Gaussen, the church which has a name that it lives, but is dead, and this at the same time as Thyatira. Meanwhile, in this remnant according to the election of grace, there are only a small number who shall walk with Christ in white, as being worthy of it. Hence, if it did not repent, the Lord was to come upon this church as a thief.
And wherefore all these inconsistencies? To make of Philadelphia the blessed Reformation. Unhappily (pages 230, 231), during this period the outward churches, official and visible, will be given up unto the enemies of God. Page 218, Mr. Gaussen tells us that the horse “is the historical sign of Rome.” It is certain, according to Zechariah, that the horses are not simply the Roman empire.
Page 220. “Thus the Roman world henceforth will hold on the earth the place of the twelve tribes of the ancient people. The oracles of the New Testament will be committed to it.” Add to this (page 221) that soon it would be the great apostasy, “which was to bring upon the Roman world all the chastenings revealed by St. John under the seventh and last seal… What will God do with His dear church, during this long revolt and these tribulations? We will answer: He will bring it out of them pure; He will keep it according to His election of grace. But, in order that this may be, what will He do? Listen, for this is what is told us in that admirable chapter 7, ‘He will go and take His elect from generation to generation, in the twelve tribes of this prophetical earth, which henceforth fill the place of the ancient people Israel, for these twelve tribes here named are no longer Jews; they are, says St. John, men out of every nation, of every tribe, of every people, and of every tongue.’”
I say nothing of the idea that the oracles of God were committed to “the Roman world” —Christianised. I say nothing of this, that the real twelve tribes were an elect people, and redeemed on the part of Him whose gifts and calling are not subject to repentance. I merely point out here the way the word is treated to be accommodated to a preconceived system. “He will go and take His elect from generation to generation.” Where is this said in that admirable chapter 7? Nowhere. Quite the contrary; it is a very special period, where God holds fast the winds that may hurt until these one hundred and forty-four thousand have been sealed. Now, in order to adapt this also to his system, Mr. Gaussen affirms to us that John says they are people of every nation, etc. But John does not say a word about it. Having spoken of the one hundred and forty-four thousand of the twelve tribes of Israel, he says, “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations,” etc. That is, we have a multitude, which no man could number, of Gentiles, in contrast with an exact numbering of the elect of Israel. There is not a word of what Mr. Gaussen says, but the contrary on every point.
And do you know, reader, why these elect are presented here rather than elsewhere? It is “for a most simple and most beautiful reason: it is at this period of history that God raised up the admirable Augustine.” All this, it is true, is borrowed from Mr. Elliott, but this ought to have given Mr. Gaussen time for weighing such assertions.
Page 223. The one hundred and forty-four thousand “reappear from generation to generation in all the great scenes of the Apocalypse.” Where? There is a mention of one hundred and forty-four thousand in chapter 14; but it is not said they were the same.
The reafder will do well to notice the crowd of things which are supposed in these pages of Mr. Gaussen, of which we have just been giving extracts—serious and important things, advanced without proof. The twelve tribes are the Roman empire; the one hundred and forty-four thousand are the church; and from generation to generation the church will pass through tribulations. I find, on the contrary, that there is a promise to the faithful of Philadelphia that they will be kept out of the hour of trial. But I do not discuss these points. I call the attention of the reader to these assertions, because, if they are not pointed out, they would leave an impression on the mind as if they were true.
Page 229. I leave the trumpet called Russian, since Mr. Gaussen does not explain it: only I would call on the reader to observe that these chapters of Ezekiel which, as commentators have remarked, speak of the Russians by their very name,39 apply to Israel and to the land of Canaan, and to them alone.
But, with regard to what is said in page 232, I have an observation to make. Mr. Gaussen brings in the killing of the witnesses at the end of the testimony of the twelve hundred and sixty days. It is well for the reader to pay attention here to the dates. It is not, however, of this that I would speak. This it is to which I would call attention: that, during the twelve hundred and sixty days of their testimony, no one could touch the witnesses: “if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies.” They it is who smite the earth with all kinds of plagues. They are clothed in sackcloth; but they are like Moses and Elias. How could they be delivered up into the hands of the beast and the little horn during that period, and be overcome by the beast? What is here said of the witnesses overturns the whole system. Mr. Gaussen avoids one of the difficulties felt by the other commentators, in distinguishing between the beasts. But he is in the same perplexity after all; because the horn is to have power over the witnesses, and the beast will overcome them, contrary to what is said here. I must add that I have no difficulty on this subject; for my part, I see two distinct halves of the last week of the seventy weeks of Daniel; and I think that it is in the last half week that this peculiar testimony is given.40 But I do not discuss here.
We have spoken enough of the reasoning of the writer on the invisibility of the church. I add, however, that it is rather singular that the writer should scatter in the outward court (page 240) and in the holy city those who worship in the inward sanctuary. I do not return again to the monstrous things which are said on Revelation 12.
Page 246. We have another proof of the fallacy of the system. The dragon is the pagan beast, according to Mr. Gaussen, but “one recognises it to be the same beast,” he says, “by the duration of its war against the saints.” The war of the dragon! Is it the pagan empire that persecuted during the twelve hundred and sixty years? This also, which we indeed find in that chapter (for the woman flies into the wilderness from the face of the dragon, there to be fed twelve hundred and sixty days), overturns all Mr. Gaussen’s system, which brings in that period after the complete change of the dragon through Christianity;41 and not only that, but he makes his period of twelve hundred and sixty days to begin under the second form of the beast. The dragon has nothing to do with the twelve hundred and sixty days in Mr. Gaussen’s system, but it is what he has in Revelation 12. That is, the system is untenable. It is in vain to say that it is the same beast. Observe by the way the uncertainty which reigns here. Mr. Gaussen says (page 248), “It [the empire has] nevertheless had emperors at the same time as kings, until the days of Buonaparte.” In page 250, “The ten kings have hardly ever ceased to own a holy Roman empire.” “One might almost say it has lasted till our day.” He had positively affirmed it two pages before. But, elsewhere, he confesses there had been an interval of sixty years (vol. 2, page 255); and more positively (vol. 3, page 274), where it is said that it must perhaps be prolonged even two hundred and sixty-three years more.
But the conclusion on the subject of the beasts deserves a few words more. According to the word, the child is caught up unto God and to His throne; He is to rule all nations with a rod of iron. But (page 256) He rules paganism (that is, according to Mr. Gaussen, the dragon) with a rod of iron, already under Constantine. The triumph, however, is not long. The dragon all of a sudden becomes (page 257) the furious power of the Arians! Then Augustine prepares wings for the woman, that she may be in a state to fly into the wilderness. Finally, the dragon (pages 252, 253), that is, “in religion, a pagan and persecuting power,” and with respect to the political side, the absolute power of the pagan emperors (say the imperial head from the third to the fourth century) becomes, after the second Arian attack, “the enemy of souls, making use of the Roman empire” —Christianised— “to cast forth after the woman the impetuous flood of barbarians.” But the Latin empire (that is, the dragon, at the beginning of the phrase) swallows them up; they are absorbed into the empire, and are incorporated with it.
Page 270. Another passage is given as a quotation, with the expression “the church “added to the text of scripture.
Page 277. Mr. Gaussen makes of the destruction of the saints the source of the universal authority of the beast, adding, “as St. John says here, verse 8.” There is not an idea about this in John.
Mr. Gaussen adds “semi-religious,” in speaking of the character of the beast that is worshipped, whereas it is the second beast that is the religious party. He would only (page 214) speak of the empire, in contrast with religion, where it was a question of explaining the verse which speaks of worshipping the beast. And there, mark it well, the beast was the Roman empire under Justinian or under Charlemagne, who could hardly be said to have been objects of worship.
They have taken it to be certain that the twelve hundred and sixty days, and three times and a half, are necessarily the same period; but that period is the half of a week; and the question whether the two halves are not referred to, nor the possibility of reconciling the state of the witnesses in chapter 12 with the state of the saints in chapter 13. However that may be, Mr. Gaussen supposes the thing, and proves nothing. As to the empire, every one acknowledges it is the same.
Page 280. “An empire within the empire in the same countries.” Why in the same countries? No proof. The Lamb was Christ. Why is not this beast a false Christ? When Mr. Gaussen attributes miracles to the horn, the word does not support him. There are only words against the Most High and persecution of the saints.
Page 282. There is something more serious which, when compared with other passages of the writer, demolishes the whole system of Mr. Gaussen. “The second “period of the empire of the Latins “continues to the French Revolution in 1789.” “Yes, it is the time of the twelve hundred and sixty days, or of the war of the little horn against the church of God.”
This is absolutely necessary to his system, because his beast—decem-regal—makes war during forty-two months, and the little horn during the three years and a half, that is, during the same period. Now the little horn makes war with the saints, “until the Ancient of days came,” and, according to Mr. Gaussen (page 182), “this prophecy is there to tell us how will arise in the Roman empire that impious power which is to torment the church to the end of times.” Now mark well that the persecution is attributed to the horn, and not to the beast, in Daniel 7. But this one remark destroys all the system of Mr. Gaussen, because if that horn, which lasts twelve hundred and sixty days, or three times and a half (the same period as the beast of chapter 13 of the Apocalypse), torments the church to the end of times, the theory of a third period of the beast under another form is imaginary. It was to take place after the end of times—after the coming of the Ancient of days. Here then, in a word, the third goes on till the coming of Jesus Christ. In Daniel, and according to Mr. Gaussen elsewhere, it is the second. This is a main point, because it is a question of the identity of the period of twelve hundred and sixty days and of the three times and a half.
Page 284. There is again something very serious. The question is about the beast in its last form, and of its destruction. “The beast is slain, and his body destroyed; it is given to the fire to be burned. Then, immediately after, the Son of man comes on the clouds of heaven.” Very well, we see now why it was necessary to confound the presenting of the Son of man to the Ancient of days with His coming on earth, in using the passage of Daniel, as we have already noticed, sometimes for the one, sometimes for the other. The doctrine here announced excludes the Son of man from taking any part in the judgment of the beast. He does not come upon the clouds till after that judgment. Daniel presents unto us the Son of man brought near before the Ancient of days to receive the kingdom. Mr. Gaussen alters this in order to make it to be the coming of Christ, and he quotes Revelation 19 in confirmation.
Now it is certain, according to Revelation 19, that it is by the coming of Jesus that the beast is destroyed. That He who is seated upon the horse is the Lamb is what is told us (chap. 17:14); that those that are with Him are the saints is what is certain from that same verse. The marriage of the Lamb also has taken place before that judgment (chap. 19). In spite of all this, Mr. Gaussen puts the coming of the Lord, who is the One that judges the beast, in chapter 19, after the judgment of the latter. Chapter 20:4 is a new vision, which introduces a new order of things; namely, the session on thrones, and not the coming in glory. Daniel 7 is also divided into visions, which begin at verses 1,7,13; and then comes the explanation: that is, verses 13, 14, contain a distinct vision.
What Mr. Gaussen calls anarchy (page 285), mark it well, is the effect of the judgment and of the setting up of a kingdom on God’s part; it is the explanation that the Spirit of God Himself gives of what He says of the little stone; Dan. n:44, etc. That kingdom, which God sets up, breaks in pieces these human kingdoms; the ruin is not prepared by anarchy; the feet are smitten by the little stone, and all is broken to pieces by the power of the kingdom that is set up, and no place was any more found for that which existed before. What can one think of an interpretation which applies this to a democratic anarchy?
Here also in the Apocalypse, there is no question of anarchy. The beast is taken and cast alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. Is this anarchy? Now that beast is, according to Mr. Gaussen, democracy, and it had not been judged before by another judgment; those who compose his army are slain; and mark well that it is the blow of judgment, given by the kingdom that God sets up, which is here in question, and which produces what Mr. Gaussen so unadvisedly calls anarchy. It is not a state of things brought on by political revolutionary movements, which prepares the ruin (see page 255); it is the ruin itself through the judgment of God. Is the little stone cut out without hands, which becomes a great mountain and fills the whole earth, a democratic and revolutionary spirit? And yet it is this which will grind the statue to powder.
All the system is untenable. As to the rising up and movement of democracy, it is a certain thing; it has been known well enough for many years. But the system which Mr. Gaussen founds on this is entirely opposed to the word. That is not all yet. The beast is the Latin empire in its unity. This is what he lays down as a landmark; but here he abandons that idea to bring his democracy into action. The beast becomes the people. But it is the people under citizen kings in all the ten states of the Latin empire (page 289). The unity is lost. It is the multitude of the people become sovereigns, in every one of those kingdoms. This circumstance renders impossible the application of the passage to their receiving authority at the same time as the beast, as Mr. Gaussen conceives; for that reception of power is at about ten different epochs. Moreover, the Greek for “one hour” in Revelation 17:12, does not mean at the same epoch, but during the same period. See, above, the note at page 121. But finally, what is the grand proof that this beast is the democracy? It is this, that the woman, sitting on the beast, sits also upon the waters. The beast is the people, “peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.” (See pages 286, 295.)
These expressions are very far from giving the idea of unity. The expression “nations” and “tongues,” does not shew the beast in a democratic unity or any other unity. But this is not all: we see in the last page quoted, that Mr. Gaussen grounds himself on the idea that the woman sits at the same time upon the beast and upon the waters.
Here are his words: “It is the people sovereign, under kings delegate, who are deprived of the diadem.”
Who told you so?
“The angel who speaks to St. John.”
And in what way?
“Rome sits on the beast; it is also said to be seated at the same time upon many waters; therefore the beast is the many waters.”
Now Mr. Gaussen did not pay attention to the original text. By consulting it, he would have seen he was building in the air. The woman sits, “sits upon a beast” (Rev. 17:3) (the Greek is in the accusative), and “upon many waters” (in the genitive). If I say that Antwerp is situated on the Scheldt, it does not mean that the city is built on the water, but on the side of the river. I suppose that Mr. Gaussen, when he has reflected, will not question that this is the sense of the passage. The woman, seated upon the beast and exercising dominion over the beast, was placed on the side of the waters, and spread her influence over peoples and nations, and this beyond the beast properly speaking.
That the evil of the last days is great is a thing I do not doubt. That the saints are in the tribulation I do not believe. Those who kept the word of Christ’s patience will be kept out of the hour of trial which is about to come upon the whole habitable world, “to try them that dwell upon the earth.” That those, whose portion is more or less earthly, should dread what is about to come, I understand; he who has his citizenship in heaven will not find it affected. Dread as to the future is not faith.
Page 304. In the text of the work we find, in a clear way, the contradiction which we have pointed out, and which affects the basis of the whole system. The writer speaks of the destinies of that little horn which was to torment the earth during the last two periods we have just been speaking of. But the first of the two, which lasts twelve hundred and sixty days, as well as the little horn, was to go on to the end, so that the contradiction is evident.
Page 307. We find here the practical effect of all this false system, that is, that we must wait for the Antichrist in order to wait for Christ, a principle which destroys on this subject all the moral teaching of the Lord, who always insisted on the constant waiting for His return—a principle which confounds the judgment of the world with the blessings of the church— which results in this, that the church, attached to the world, settles down here in heart, until the Lord comes, instead of understanding and believing, according to the positive declarations of His word, that, when He comes thus, it will come with Him, the marriage of the Lamb above having already taken place.
Page 308 presents to us an instance of a curious feature of this book. Speaking of the Antichrist it is said, “During which of those three42 forms have we also ascertained he was to live? During the two last … yes; that is, unto the end of times?
What simplicity in the expression, “ascertained”! Is any proof given? Not in the least. To touch upon that question, when dealing with the third form, would have been fatal to the whole system. The thing is stated without going any farther. It cannot be denied that the horn continues to the end; but, in that case, the whole system is false, since the duration of the second form of the beast is identical with that of the horn. This duration is for twelve hundred and sixty days. And having glided over all that, now the thing is “ascertained.” Compare pages 182 and 278, where we have “mathematical evidence” of that which overturns all that is said on the third state of the beast.
“How long was that war of the decem-regal beast against the saints to last according to St. John?
“Forty and two months.
“And how long according to Daniel?
“Daniel says in his verse 25 that the saints should be given into the hands of the beast and the little horn, until a time and times and the dividing of time.”
Yes, and after other proofs taken from Revelation 11 and 12 the writer concludes that nothing is better established than the identity of these two prophecies. Now, as we have said on page 182, the ungodly power of the little horn of Daniel 7 is to torment the church up to the end of times;43 so that the twelve hundred and sixty days go on to the end of times.
Now (page 308), it is the two last: the decem-regal form and the democratic form; “that is to say, thus unto the end of times.”
We need only remember this to be brought to understand that what is said in page 318 has no foundation. For the rest, during the twelve hundred and sixty days that the witnesses give their testimony, it is not a question of overcoming them. They kill those who would torment them. These persecutions unto the end of times degenerate (page 319) into a “perhaps.”
Pages 321, 322. Observe the pains that are taken to confound the saints of the Old and New Testament, and the way in which the portion of the church, which is to go and meet the Lord, is carefully set aside. Page 324, Here again the fallacy of the system betrays itself.
In the fifth place, it is “until the beast and its Antichrist are broken to pieces, and that the dominion and greatness of the kingdoms which are under heaven are given unto the saints of the Most High.”
In the sixth place it is “this ecclesiastical power which, during the decem-regal period.” One will recollect that Mr. Gaussen’s democratic beast comes after the decem-regal beast.
Which of the two things is true? In both he speaks of the same thing, that is, of the little horn, as we see in the note added to the fifth remark and in the text of the sixth.
This complete and total contradiction, fatal to the whole system, breaks out again (page 325) in a way which only allows a feeling of astonishment that the writer could publish it. He speaks of Daniel 7:22. “It clearly declares that the life of the beast, that of the Antichrist, and the war with the saints, continue till the coming of Jesus Christ, and till the reign of the saints. We must therefore conclude from this that this personage still exists in our day, and that the term of the war with the saints is not yet come.” Now we read (page 282), “The second (decem-regal beast) continues from this to the French Revolution in a.d. 1789. Yes, it is the time of the twelve hundred and sixty days, or of the war of the little horn with the church of God” —a war pointed out in Daniel 7:22.
“And the third?
“The third goes on from this unto the second coming of Jesus Christ.
“Very well.”
Which of the two, page 325 or page 282, contains the truth on the point?
Page 327. “In what precedes we were told of its great words; but here it is blasphemy, it is against the most holy Trinity.” Where is that distinction found? Simply in the fact that Mr. Gaussen had himself given a very long explanation, of which there is not a word in Daniel, in order to apply it to the Pope, and “here “Daniel, or rather the Spirit of God, gives quite another one, which hardly leaves room for that of Mr. Gaussen. “We were told” is candid enough.
Page 335. Mr. Gaussen has omitted what alters all the value of the passage to attain the object in view of which he quoted it. The word says, “They … of the kindreds shall see their dead bodies three days and a half,” etc. They were not therefore at so great a distance. They of the kindreds—it is the class; that is, they of that category of persons who were there. When it is a question of sending gifts, nothing is said of the time spent for that. However, I think it is simply characteristic. For the rest, there would be no difficulty. They will rejoice at it, when they receive the tidings, were it even at the ends of the earth. At all events, the passage is not what Mr. Gaussen says, and cannot be accommodated to it.
Here also Mr. Gaussen gives as being the word of God that which is not found there, namely, “Seal the vision, Daniel, for it shall be for many days, and goes on unto two thousand and three hundred days.” Now there is nothing of the sort in Daniel. The words, “it shall be for many days,” are not thus connected with the two thousand three hundred days.
Page 335. “It shall be for many days.” This does not speak of the duration of what is to happen, but of the interval unto the effect of the vision, as in chapter 12:9: “Go thy way, Daniel; for these words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end [until the time determined],” or, according to the French translation of the passage of Daniel 8 which we are examining, “for it shall not be for a long time.” There is no passage like what Mr. Gaussen puts between inverted commas. It is too serious a thing to say “An angel says to him,” when the angel said nothing of the kind. What the angel did say to him is, “Behold, I will make thee know what shall be at the last end of the indignation.”
Pages 335, 336. Observe, as regards Daniel 12, which is referred to here, that the Lord, speaking of the times that are in question, speaks of Jerusalem, of fleeing into the mountains, of the sabbath-day, of shortening the days (but for which “there should no flesh be saved”); that is, what He says makes it perfectly clear that it is a question of days and not of years. If I am told, But it is a question there of the taking of Jerusalem, I answer in that case, It is a question of the same thing in Daniel; for the Lord says, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet… whoso readeth, let him understand.” That passage, where it is a question of the abomination of desolation, is the passage where the three times and a half, the forty and five days, and the thirty days, of which Mr. Gaussen speaks, are mentioned.
In contradiction to what Mr. Gaussen here insinuates, it is certain that, as to the twelve hundred and sixty days, the oldest readers of Daniel whose writings we possess take them as days. Mr. Gaussen has already admitted this, founding himself on the good sense of the Jew Trypho against their opinion.
Mr. Gaussen tries to remove these contradictions about the duration of the persecutions of the little horn—a duration which he declares to be of twelve hundred and sixty years (page 72); then (page 182) unto the end of times; page 282, until the French Revolution in a.d. 1789; page 311, making it the general duration of its life; page 324, a war carried on until the reign of the saints; in the same page, during the whole decem-regal period; page 325, the life of the beast, that of the Antichrist, and its war with the saints until the coming of Jesus Christ and until the reign of the saints. He seeks, I say, to reconcile these contradictions by saying, “It is true that they [the saints] are to be, in a certain way, given into his hands, but only until a time and times and the dividing of time; but the war and hatred will last until the second coming.” But, further on, we equally find that, though the action of the little horn, as a wild beast, is transformed into that of the woman—or court of Rome—leading the democracy, the horn does not cease to act thus, just as the woman had acted before the democracy (pages 347, 348). Mr. Gaussen could not avoid thus modifying what he had said, because it is clear that the second beast, which he identifies with the little horn, perishes as false prophet after the destruction of Babylon.
But let us come to the root of the distinction. I have already called attention to this, that the application made to the saints of the words “given into his hand,” is, I doubt not, both arbitrary and false, of which, however, others besides Mr. Gaussen are guilty. It is the times and laws that are given into the hand of the horn. He will think to change all that and will change it. But if we take the little horn according to Mr. Gaussen’s system, the distinction he has made is a most unhappy one, because the witnesses, as we have already seen, are in no wise given into the hand of their enemies during the twelve hundred and sixty days, that is, during Mr. Gaussen’s second period—say that of the crowned kings; but, quite the contrary, those who would hurt them are killed. It is after having continued their testimony during that period without being hurt, that they are given into the hand of the beast of Mr. Gaussen’s third period—” the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit.” It is that beast which, making war against them, will overthrow them and kill them. They are given into the hand of the beast of the third period of Mr. Gaussen’s system, and not of the beast of the second.
The description of the acts of the woman (page 346) is not in the least according to the word, either for the decem-regal period, or for the time that comes after. The horn and the woman are confounded without saying why. Yet the things are given between inverted commas as quotations. The papal system answers to what Mr. Gaussen says: but what he says does not at all answer to the word. It is the history of the whole book. The little horn, says Mr. Gaussen, has “two periods which St. John has clearly defined to us, the one in his chapter 13, the other in his chapter 17.” “The little horn will always be on the side of the strongest.” “During the polycratic period, it will, as much as it can, associate its power with that of the ten absolute kings”; it will exercise, we are told, all their power before them; Rev. 13. But during the democratic period, “it will make drunk with its heady wine the ten citizen kings, and will contrive to ride on their revolutionary peoples.” That such, up to a certain point may be, the probable history of papacy, according to the Abb6 de Lammenais, is possible; but—to say nothing of the arrogance which we were told of elsewhere, which associates itself with nothing, but exalts itself above everything; not to repeat, what I have already called attention to, that it is not a question of their authority, of their presence, but of exercising the authority of the beast in his presence, which is quite a different thing, and that it is not said that it would make the kings drunk and would ride on their peoples, but that the nations would be made drunk, and that the kings of the earth would commit fornication with it; which changes every thing (a grievous thing when the word of God is in question),—I ask, Who will do all that? The little horn, says Mr. Gaussen. But it is a question of the woman in those passages, and the little horn is not the woman. That horn subsists, according to Mr. Gaussen himself, when the woman is destroyed.
Besides, John does not speak of the little horn, whether in chapter 13, or in chapter 17. He speaks of a second beast and of Babylon; that is, the writer supposes (contradicting himself as to Babylon) the very thing he would have to prove, namely, that these two things are die horn, and he does so without any proof whatever. Then he says, “This double period of the little horn is therefore clearly established” (page 347). If Mr. Gaussen tells me, “But I have proved it by its duration of twelve hundred and sixty days, which are found both in Daniel and in John,” I answer, That duration, if it proves anything, shews that it is impossible to apply to a double period of the little horn, for it ends with the decem-regal period. Moreover, nothing at all is said of the duration of the second beast.44 The only proof given is, that the fact of there being a woman, who is not the little horn, shews that the little horn will subsist during that second period, as that woman. And how are these things connected? Mr. Gaussen’s ideas on the papacy alone form the connection.
For the rest, to apply Babylon to that democratic period, as characterising it, is an idea both unfounded and false. That the kings of the earth will begin to commit fornication with her, in order to restrain the democracy, may very well be. But in Babylon is found all the blood shed upon the earth. We have also in Revelation 17 the description of the beast from the commencement of its existence; and it is with the beast in its unity when it ascends out of the bottomless pit, after it had ceased to exist, that the kings receive their authority. It is not a question of an opinion, as Mr. Gaussen represents it, but of the empire, and whatever may be the political opinion and the woes which flow from the passions of men (the sober-minded Christian will acknowledge it), to have ascended out of the bottomless pit goes much farther than the revolutions caused by the passions of men. I believe that all these things tend to bring about the result; but the beast is always the empire, and not a political principle. “Was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit” can be said of the empire, but not of a principle which is of the bottomless pit, nor of the peoples of different kingdoms under an influence. Babylon is the city of abominations, that is, quite simply, of idols; but it is not only during the third period supposed by Mr. Gaussen. The description is moral and general, without date. I do not believe that any allusion is made in it to democracy, when it is said, “Seven heads and ten horns,” although we know very well that historically the strength of democracy has greatly increased.
And see how easily the writer’s imagination carries him away. He says that those who, as I believe, form in the present day the great majority of the Christians who have carefully studied the word, have a veil upon their heart when they read both the Old and the New Testaments, like unbelieving Jews. Now, this judgment rests on a confusion which flows from his pre-occupations. After a long dissertation on the merchandise of Rome, which I leave to the judgment of each, Mr. Gaussen asks, “If the unbelief of the Jews is inexcusable as regards the Christ, will one not be able to say as much on the Antichrist?” It is somewhat rash to place the testimony rendered by the life and death of Christ on the same footing as his own reasonings on Daniel and on the Apocalypse. We forgive him also the charge of blindness, which one would have with difficulty forgiven in others. But I will make this sole remark, that Babylon (and the question here is about Babylon) is not the Antichrist. If even it were granted to Mr. Gaussen that the bodies are relics, and that one must be blinded by God like an unbelieving Jew not to believe it, it is none the less true that the Babylon which is referred to is certainly not the Antichrist. I could even question the solidity of a reasoning which would accuse the pope of a crime horrible above anything else, because he thought to change the Scriptures, while “holding nevertheless those holy scriptures to be the Scriptures of his God” (page 323), and which would prove at the same time that the pope is the Antichrist, because he regards no God. But there would be no end to it.
Page 361. I make an important remark here on a point which has given a false turn to all Mr. Gaussen’s thoughts. “This image,” he says, “is the key to the prophecies; it is the abridgment of the great plan of God’s providence for the government of the nations.” Now I affirm that whatever be the importance of the image (and it is very great), it is the very contrary of what Mr. Gaussen says, that is true. The government (properly so called) of nations on God’s part ceases during the continuation of this image, although providence always acts. The image represents the empires which have subsisted during the period called the times of the Gentiles. God governed the nations before the image, having Israel as the centre and pivot of that government. He will inherit the nations and govern them after the destruction of the image. The duration of the image is the period during which Israel is put aside, and which is introduced by these words, “Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the heaven, hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all.” Before that, there were different nations, the existence of which was recognised, which were the fruit of the judgment of Babel; Israel had been placed at the centre of the bounds of all nations—bounds which were set according to the number of the children of Israel; and God, having set up His throne at Jerusalem, and built His sanctuary as a building set up on high, from that centre governed all nations in relation to His people. Now, finally He visited them in judgment, as He had done to Shiloh (Jer. 7); and when Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, His glory visited the city, shews the prophet the iniquity of the inhabitants, and then leaves it; Ezek. 11. Instead of different nations, and a people—a special nation owned of God—where God reigned, He sets up an imperial unity in the hand of a human head, by committing unto him all that was recognised of the world, and by placing His people in captivity. Finally, He gives up Jerusalem to be “trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” Then He will again take up the government, in judging that imperial power which will be in rebellion against Him. But is the government of God on earth limited to the time during which He has given up His people (which He yet always owns) into the hand of His enemies, when His people are groaning in captivity, and when His holy city is in the hand of the Gentiles? Is the whole of prophecy included in a book written by a son of the kings set up by God, “on the throne of the Lord,” captive in Babylon, fasting and presenting his supplications unto God, and praying that such a state of things might come to an end? Clearly not. The time during which God’s people are in captivity is not properly the time of God’s government; and a system which considers it as such, and which takes no account either of that people or of the mass of prophecies which apply to them, necessarily falls into that which is false. Daniel naturally speaks only of these times of the Gentiles. He belonged to that captivity, and God gave His precious servant the divine light which gave him to understand that God had not forgotten His people. But the most detailed prophecies of Daniel are given after the return of the Jews to Jerusalem, a circumstance which makes one feel that the true captivity, the times of the Gentiles, still existed—a truth to which the chief priests put their seal, by crying, “We have no king but Caesar.” Daniel confines himself to that period. He goes on till the judgment, by God) and His taking possession of the government; and there he always stops.
He never describes that government nor its effects; he remains the prophet of the captivity. Nothing more important in its place; but, I repeat, to neglect all that is said elsewhere, and to present, as the government of God, the period during which God has committed it to the Gentiles, until He takes it up again in judgment, on account of their unfaithfulness, is to pervert all the truth and all the force of the word on those subjects. In Psalm 82, we have an appeal made to God, that He may interpose by taking the judgment into His hand. I repeat then, all Mr. Gaussen’s system is wrong in its first idea, in its starting-point. It is false, completely false. And the fallacy of his starting-point which leaves aside the Jews and the government of God exercised in relation to that people (a government left in the hands of the Gentiles in Nebuchadnezzar, and taken up again at the time of the judgment of the beast), gives a false turn to everything he has built up thereon. The times of the Gentiles—times during which His people is rejected—are not properly the time of the government of God, although in one sense He always governs. Certainly it is not such exclusively. The system of the nations, and Israel chosen from among them, existed until Nebuchadnezzar. It will be recommenced in a far more excellent way, when the beast shall have been destroyed. The interval is the time of the beast in contrast with the government of God. Therefore do we find the church, which is in heaven, placed by Mr. Gaussen, as the great mountain on the earthy in the Pentaples, column 3.
I have only two things more to call attention to, what Mr. Gaussen calls the rule of the two ends, and the end of the last column of the Pentaples. The first, the rule of the two ends, is this: The man of sin (that is, the little horn, which he has nowhere shewn to be the little horn) reaches from the time of the invasion of the barbarians, at one end, to the reign of Jesus Christ, at the other end. As to the last end, I have nothing to oppose; the little horn will be destroyed by the coming of the Lord. It is the other end that is in question. Listen to Mr. Gaussen: “The little horn was growing slowly, and with unperceived progress. The ten first horns had presented themselves to Daniel, all at the same time, all already great and threatening, all in the midst of the foaming sea” (page 10). How in the midst of the foaming sea? Historically, as to the dates, they were not on the beast when it came up from the sea. We must add, according to Daniel, that “four great beasts came up from the sea” (chap. 7:3), and the fourth “had ten horns.” Now, if the ten horns were in the midst of the foaming sea, they were on the beast who was coming up from it, already all there, and all great. Now, it is quite evident that the Roman beast did not come up from the sea at the time of the invasion of the barbarians. And yet the ten horns were all there at the same time, great and threatening. Besides, there was nearly a century and a half between the first invasion of the barbarians and the last. Nevertheless Daniel sees them all great at the same time. What consequence do I draw from this? That the ten horns are a description, without there being any date supplied by the symbol seen by Daniel. There are there, possibly, when the little horn comes up; but as to the moment when the latter shews itself, there is absolute silence on Daniel’s part. The existence of the horns is not given there as a date.45 They are there on the beast; nothing is said of their beginning, nor that it is a question of their whole duration since they began, nor that the little horn began immediately after. There is not a single trace of what Mr. Gaussen advances. The chapter does not lend itself to dates, for the beast has ten horns when it comes up; they exist when Daniel sees it. He saw it come up out of the sea.46
If I examine the Apocalypse (chap. 13), the beast with ten horns acts during twelve hundred and sixty days; but as to the invasion of the barbarians which lasted such a length of years, there is no question of it. As to the second beast, which Mr. Gaussen, without proving it, pretends to be the little horn, there is no question of a date. So that there is absolutely nothing to shew that that beast—and, in general, that the man of sin—reaches up, by the only end which is referred to, to the time of the invasion of the barbarians.
Perhaps I am as blind as a Jew, but I do not even see in it the Pentaples to which Mr. Gaussen refers me (page 382). I see a frightful head, which comes out of the sea, with ten horns and an eleventh horn which is smaller than the others. But how does this plainly shew that the existence of this little horn begins at the time of the invasion of the barbarians?
In a word, the teaching of the prophecy does not bear upon any beginning whatever of the ten horns, nor upon a beginning of the little horn, at any moment whatever of the existence of the ten. There is a complete absence of proof. The little horn will continue till the coming of Jesus, twelve hundred and sixty days, and the beast with ten horns during twelve hundred and sixty days; but this only overturns the writer’s system, because he would leave time enough for his democratic beast afterwards.
Finally (and this is the last point), the writer places the resurrection after the judgment of the beast and the false prophet. Here are the passages which shew this cannot be. 1 Thessalonians 4 teaches us that we shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air before He is on earth to execute judgment. Therefore it is not possible that the resurrection should be after that judgment. Colossians 3: “When Christ, who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory”: so that we shall have been raised before He appears. Jude says, “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.”
The appearing of Jesus is with all His saints, and, in Revelation 17, those who are with Jesus are “called, and chosen, and faithful.” The marriage of the Lamb takes place before He comes on the white horse, and the armies which are in heaven follow Him, for the destruction of the beast. Mark well that the angels, although chosen and faithful, are not called ones. The connection which Mr. Gaussen seeks to establish between the church and these prophecies, is entirely contradicted by the word. Pay attention to this, reader, for it is most important.
You are misled by the book as to your faith: in it, the church is put out of its place. Its true position is denied. Had it not been for this, I would never have made a remark on Mr. Gaussen’s system—a system where an ardent imagination has united to the beauties of an attractive style serious errors, and thoughts which nearly all deviate from the word. I own that I find something very serious in the way of quoting the word, that is, in advancing things which are not there, with a “St. John says so,” or “It is written,” etc. In the beginning, I had no other idea but to point out the four or five main points which I have shewn to be destitute of all proof; but the importance of the questions, and the gravity of the errors, induced me to touch briefly upon nearly all the foundations which the writer has laid down. I have avoided all discussion of doubtful points. I have confined myself to shewing that the system has no foundation whatever in the word.
It is a mixture of a few elements of truth, already explained two centuries ago, with the most grievous errors, recently introduced in order to oppose the light God has vouchsafed to His church in these latter times—errors to which Mr. Gaussen adds a few new and false elements, taken from the events of the day, clothing the whole with an attractive style, used to turn away the church from waiting for the Lord, and to confound the judgment of the world with our gathering together to Jesus.
The publication of the second edition of the first volume of “Daniel the Prophet” gives me an opportunity for adding a few words to what I have just been saying on the second and third volumes. Mr. Gaussen’s remarks on chapter 11 make us understand more exactly what his views are on the ways of God at the end of time. I am only occupied with his views on prophecy. I respect the piety one meets with in this first volume, although it is wrapped up in such a mass of history and imagery, which no doubt have attraction for most readers, but which, at times, may tire those who look for biblical explanation. I leave to every one his judgment in this respect, and I only take up the interpretation of chapter 2.
The little stone, according to Mr. Gaussen, is “some feeble portion of the church of God, which will become the occasion of the ruin of the colossus, and of the coming of the reign of Jesus Christ.” The mountain itself out of which it is cut “is the church of God, which has subsisted in all ages by the side of the image and before the image, but which is only then to obtain dominion among men.” The first thing here that fixes attention is, that the stone, this “feeble portion of the church,” is to be separated from the mountain by “the providence of God and by the power alone of His divine Spirit.” This is singular, if the mountain is the true church which has subsisted by the side of the image in all ages. Why should this little portion be separated from the true church? But I let that pass. According to Mr. Gaussen it is the little stone which itself, at a later time, becomes the mountain which fills the whole earth. And as to the other mountain, what becomes of it? Do the separatists absorb the aggregate of the church? and do they, by themselves, execute the judgment?
But I leave all this. I only remind the reader of the remark already made, that, according to the word, the kingdom is set up in the days of the ten kings, and that assuredly the church was not set up in the days of the ten kings. And, pay attention to this, that it is the kingdom that God has established in those days which breaks in pieces and consumes all the kingdoms of the image. “But,” says Mr. Gaussen, speaking of the little stone (without saying clearly whether he speaks of its existence, or of its work of destruction), “it will begin in the toes of the image.” How will it begin? The stone was cut, without hands, out of the mountain which was by the side of the image. The stone was not in the image; it did not come out of it, and formed no part of it. It smote the image and broke it to pieces. What was it then that began?
But see in what way Mr. Gaussen has changed according to his fancy that which the word says. “It will begin in this way; true Christians will never rise up against the powers that be. But if any one of the children of men is unfortunate enough to rise up against the church of Jesus Christ, sooner or later he will there destroy himself;47 if he will seek to break it to pieces, certainly he will there break himself to pieces… It is thus, dear children, that in the last days the church will break to pieces its adversaries; it will overcome by the blood of the Lamb, as it is written; ‘it will overcome through the patience and through the faith of the saints.’” So that this terrible blow of the little stone, which grinds to powder the image and utterly destroys it, is an attack of one part of the image against the church, which will overcome through patience. Is this a serious interpretation of the word of God?
“Finally,” says Mr. Gaussen, “the following are the immense results of this awful collision. One of the kings or several of the kings that belong to the Latin Church, angry with a certain portion of the people of God, will seek to crush it; but they will be broken to pieces like the chaff,” etc. “There will remain nothing but their dust, nothing but a frightful anarchy; the complete and universal breaking up of all the governments and powers that are will begin in the toes of the image” “In the midst of that frightful trouble one will see this little stone growing, growing, growing, by the power of God. Some time later it will have become a great mountain; and still later it will finally fill the whole earth.” After these ideas of Mr. Gaussen, I take the liberty of presenting the word of God:
“Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.”
“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”
Do we find there one single idea which resembles those of Mr. Gaussen? Do the toes attack the stone? Does the stone manifest the Christian mildness and patience which bears with the evil? Is it not quite evident that the word of God speaks the very contrary of what Mr. Gaussen says? Is it not evident that the time of patience is ended, when the stone acts and when the time of the judgment is come? Is it not clear that the blow from the stone is, above all, a judgment, which utterly destroys every trace of the kingdoms of the image? Is it not evident that it is the only thing which the little stone does, and that it is after this has been done that it fills the whole earth? Is it in the midst of anarchy that it grows? All Mr. Gaussen’s system is only an endeavour which tends to substitute its own ideas in the place of the testimony of the word.
Reflect well upon it, reader; I say it seriously. That explanation presents to us, perhaps, the expectation of Mr. Gaussen in the year 1837; but not one single thought of the passage in Daniel. And remark how carefully Christ is excluded from this judgment. “Thou wilt fill the earth, O church of my Saviour. This work of the little stone will become the occasion of the coming of the reign of Jesus Christ.” Will He not then come Himself to execute the judgment? Let us examine what is said by other passages of the word. Will there be “an anarchy, a complete breaking up of all governments,” before His arrival? By no means.
“And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour [during the same period] with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.” There will be no anarchy there, no breaking up of governments, before the Lamb comes. And how then are they broken to pieces? The word relates to us the accomplishment of the judgment, of that victory of which the passage just quoted has spoken to us. “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called, The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” Is that a feeble portion of the church, which overcomes through patience? And yet there cannot be two judgments of the same kind, for the blow from the little stone consumes the kingdoms, so that no place is found for them.
Finally, here is the judgment itself:
“And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth; and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.”
Who is it that executes the judgment? The kings, smitten by the stone, are found here. Their power is not yet carried away like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors. Is it against the church on earth that they are making war? Read also the end of chapter 14. Who is it that treads the winepress of the wrath of God, so that His vesture is dipped in blood? Read also Isaiah 63, and you will see who it is that is come from Edom, with garments dyed with red, after having been alone, as to the peoples of the world, to tread the winepress.
I have already called attention to the manner in which Mr. Gaussen excludes Christ from the judgment of the beast, so that I do not return to it. There have been judgments executed on the beast, vials poured out, and that even upon its seat or throne; but here it is a question of a final judgment with respect to the image, with respect to the ten kingdoms—a judgment which causes them to disappear from the face of the earth. To exclude Jesus from it, so as to make it a consequence of the persecution of some little portion of the church, is enough to shew that the whole system which hangs upon it is nothing but the sport of the imagination of man. I respect, I repeat, the piety of the writer; I honour him, as sincere; as a man, I respect him. But I frankly own that I feel no respect for such a use—for such a perversion—of the word. I make allowance for an ardent imagination; I acknowledge how easy it may be for one to make a mistake on such subjects, if one goes beyond the plain teaching we may have received from God, and of which every one who has studied prophecy with piety will bring his share, whatever be his system. But as to Mr. Gaussen’s book, it is not only that it contains an erroneous system. The writer avows that it is good to consider the coming of the Saviour as being at a distance for the church. He destroys the great foundations of the word, not on prophecy, but with regard to the judgment executed by Jesus; and he gives as quotations that which is not found in the word, in a way that deserves the strongest reproof of every faithful soul. The more Mr. Gaussen is surrounded with esteem (and I do not doubt that he deserves it, humanly speaking), the more important it is to denounce the evil. The piety and apostolic authority of Peter only served to carry away all the converted Jews and Barnabas by dissimulation, when he fell into it. The failures of a godly man are the most dangerous of all failures.
29 Paris, Geneva, and Montpellier, 1850.
30 Mr. Gaussen admits that this point divides commentators irresistibly into two great schools, radically opposed to each other, never to be reconciled, and differing from each other on every point. (Preface to Vol. 2, pp. 15, 16.)
31 Mr. Gaussen quotes (Vol. 1, 133) 1 Samuel 2:10; Psalm 18:2; Luke 1:69, all which passages prove that “horn” simply means power. In any one of these cases can there be succession?
32 Here Mr. Gaussen places the words “the church of the elect” between inverted commas, as if they were a quotation from the word. I do not remember that there is such an expression in the word. Sometimes people add the word “church” to that of “elect.” We find an instance in 1 Peter 5:13: “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you.” But the word “church” does not exist in the original; and if that word were found there, it would hardly suit Mr. Gaussen, because it would then be a particular assembly which was elect. I must warn the reader to be carefully on his guard with respect to apparent quotations from the word, which are to be found in this book. Not that I have the least idea that there is any dishonesty on Mr. Gaussen’s part; but having attributed his opinions to the word, he uses phrases, in the form of quotations, which do not exist in the word, as if the word said what he thinks. For instance, page 255 we read: “The mother of the one hundred and forty-four thousand, who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, and have made their robes white in the blood of the Lamb.” There is no such passage to be found in Scripture. There are several passages tacked together (the words, “the mother,” being added), which have no connection with each other, except in Mr. Gaussen’s system. In the same page we find: “The apostle takes great care to tell us that the church has there a place prepared of God; that at a later time they should feed her there twelve hundred and sixty days.” But the apostle did not say it was the church, neither did he say “at a later time” — two things without which the passage is of no value as a proof of the point for which Mr. Gaussen quotes it.
33 Nevertheless, at the end of the volume, he allows the children to speak of it, as if there were two times in the passage (p. 334).
34 In saying this, I rely on the best dictionaries, without pretending to be a Hebrew scholar myself. It comes from zaman, which signifies to be “appointed,” “fixed.”
35 There are many other passages, however, in volume 2 where the word “church” is used in the same way.
36 Mr. Gaussen seeks, it is true, to distinguish these two things, and to explain the passage by saying that the ten uncrowned kings take that character of power, at the same time as the democracy. But one cannot understand how ten horns which have existed twelve hundred and sixty years, take their power through losing their crowns by a revolution; and since that takes place in each kingdom, at a different epoch, it cannot be at the same time with the beast which is the unity of the Latin empire. Besides, mian horan (Rev. 17:12), being accusative case denotes time during which; whereas he de hemera (Luke 17:29) (“on which day” or “on the day that”) and Rev. 18:17 (“in one hour”), have the dative case denoting time at which j whilst Rev. 8:1; 11:2, 3; 17:10, have examples of time during which (accusative) “about half an hour” — “forty-two months” — “1260 days”— “a little while.” (See the Greek text.)
37 Mr. Gaussen supposes, with the other commentators, that it is the saints who are given into the hands of the little horn. I do not believe this, but the times and laws. I do not believe that God gives His saints into the hands of the enemy. It is certain that it is the words “times and laws” which immediately precede that phrase. Times and laws are the ordinances or regular feasts of the Jews, and their laws.
38 This interpretation demands that two very different states should have been presented by the Holy Ghost as characterising the same period—a thing hardly possible.
But it would have been too painful for Mr. Gaussen to admit that the state of death of protestantism is represented by Sardis, according to the system which Mr. Gaussen adopts, and which I believe to be true as regards the seven churches. Nothing more solemn than the manner in which Sardis is put on the same footing as the world. (Compare 1 Thess. 5.) I beg of the reader to pay attention to this; the contrast with Philadelphia renders the thing more striking. The energy which produced the blessed Reformation was a precious gift of God. But the seven churches depict to us, not energies which produce certain results, but the various states which followed the effect of those energies; for it is a question of the judgment of the Son of man. Now the power of the Spirit of God is not the object of the judgment of Christ; that which is its object is the state of man when he enjoyed that power.
It is never a question, in these churches, of grace communicated. There are threats and rewards—in a word, motives and responsibility. However, let us do justice to Mr. Gaussen, as regards Sardis and Philadelphia; he found, if I mistake not, this part of his system in Vitringa.
39 The word in the Hebrew, translated “chief,” is “Rosh.” Its position, it seems to me, renders necessary that it should be used as being the complement of “prince “—” Prince of Rosh.”
40 The phrase here is altered, as the writer then followed the division into two half weeks in chapter 11; now he sees ground for seeing here only the last, as in Matthew 24.
41 The woman should have clothed the dragon with a sheep-skin, or a lamb-Skin.
42 It is well to remind the reader that Mr. Gaussen teaches that there are three forms of the Roman empire; the imperial period, which lasted up to the establishment of the ten kings, the period of the ten kings or decem-regal, say that of the twelve hundred and sixty days, and the period of the democratic form—the last two being depicted in Revelation 13 and 17.
43 It is well to bear in mind that the duration of the life of the little horn and that of the war against the saints are the same, and end at the same epoch. It makes war until the Ancient of days comes, and then it is destroyed, since the war of the horn lasts during the same period as the existence of the second beast. Mr. Gaussen seeks, farther on, to avoid the contradiction between these truths and his idea of a third beast, by distinguishing between “made war with the saints,” and “given into his hand.” The little horn may make war with the saints and overcome them when they are not given into his hand, according to Mr. Gaussen. We shall deal with that distinction farther on; if the little horn and even the persecutions last after the twelve hundred and sixty days, the identity of the period with the authority of the beast has very little meaning. Moreover Mr. Gaussen deals with his own distinction in pages 72 and 73: “The war of the little horn with the saints makes in the style of prophecy a times, times, and half a time,” that is, only lasts during the decem-regal period.
44 I have no doubt that the little horn exists at the same time as the beast of chapter 13; but I absolutely deny that the beast of chapter 17 is a form which takes place during a subsequent period. I do not admit that the woman takes the place of the horn. She is quite another thing. I do not admit that the little horn is necessarily the second beast. These are things which it is essential to prove in order to support Mr. Gaussen’s explanation. He does not take the trouble of touching upon them. The duration of the horn, its dominion, its blasphemies, rather resemble the first beast.
45 In the Apocalypse there is an element which overturns Mr. Gaussen’s system, namely, that the horns and the beast subsist during the same period. But I confine myself here to the examination of Daniel.
46 Mr. Gaussen makes this sea to be the Mediterranean, and sitting on the Mediterranean is, according to him, that which the beasts characterise. Coming up from the sea has no reference whatever to that, the sea being the multitude of nations. Now that is the only connection of the beast with the sea. To sit is not to come up.
47 It is also remarkable enough that the Lord Himself speaks of the two things, that is, the result of falling on the stone, and the falling of the stone on any one, placing them in contrast. He says, “Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” So that the teaching of the Lord places what is in question in the passage of Daniel, in contrast with the application Mr. Gasusen gives of it.