..…. But the second series having commenced in 1848, and the democracy which caused it having been repressed to a considerable extent, what agency remains, as revealed in the scriptures of truth, by which is to be brought about the wonderful consummation we have been considering? The answer to this question is contained in the following words. “I saw,” says the apostle, “three unclean spirits like Frogs out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of demons (DIAMONON) bringing to pass remarkable events (POIOUNTA SEMEIA) and they go forth to the kings of the earth, and of the whole habitable (OIKOUMENES HOLES) to assemble them to the war (ElS POLEMON) of that great day of God the Almighty. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon” (Rev. 16:13-16).
In this passage we have to consider the “three unclean spirits like frogs,” the three mouths out of which they proceed, the parties to whom they go forth, and the fruit of their mission. There are three spirits and three mouths, that is, one spirit proceeding out of each mouth; but as they are all three like frogs and unclean, though proceeding from three different mouths, they are in nature, origin, and tendency the same. They are called “the spirits of demons,” not because of their uncleanness, or wickedness; but because the mouths from which they issue are the demons, or chiefs, of the dominions represented by the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet. Now the throne of the dragon is Constantinople; that of the two-horned beast, Vienna; and that of the image of the beast, Rome.
The thrones being in these cities, it follows that the demon of the dragon is the Sultan; the demon of the two-horned beast, the emperor of Austria; and the demon of the image, the false prophet himself. It is worthy of observation here, that the text says, “out of the mouth of the false prophet,” and not “out of the mouth of the image of the beast.” In the beginning of the chapter, while the first vial is supposed to be pouring out, the papal Jupiter is styled the beast’s image; but in the thirteenth verse of the same chapter, while the spirits are at work, he is termed the false prophet; and in verse twenty of chapter nineteen also, where it speaks of his perdition.
This change of style is by no means accidental. If the reader take a view of the papel dominion at the close of the last century; then view it as it is now, and compare the views together; he will doubtless come to the conclusion, that the pope is no longer the image of the imperial head of the beast. He has no dominion really, for it is so far consumed, that what remains is of little, or no account. He has good will enough to make terrible examples of the democrats who caused his flight from Rome, but he cannot carry it into effect, because the French will not permit him. He is a fugitive in exile, and though pressed to return to Rome, he is afraid to go. He is then no longer imperial, and consequently, has fallen from his lconism, and become a simple prophet.
Protestant and papal scribes are in the habit of applying the epithet “false prophet” to Mohammed, and therefore do not perceive its applicability to the Roman bishop. But neither Mohammed, nor his successors, are termed “the false prophet” in the apocalypse. The Arabian was false enough doubtless; but he was a far more respectable character than any pope that has ever reigned; and were I to choose between the two superstitions, I would rather be a Moslem than a papist.
It was the glory of Mohammed to destroy, idolatry, it is the infamy of the popes to be the high priests of the “queen of heaven.” The Saracens were God’s locusts to torment, and the Ottomans, God’s cavalry to slay with political death, the catholic image-worshippers of the Asiatic third part of the Roman dragon. Mohammed was the star; and his successors, the “commanders of the faithful,” the “angels of the bottomless pit; whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon (Rev. 9:1,11).
These names in English signify destroyer, which is indicative of the mission of those who marshalled themselves under the standard of the Arabian. The epithet “false prophet” is singularly applicable to the Roman bishop. It is a part of his functicn to preach or prophesy; that is, to “speak unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort” (1 Cor.14:3). From him these blessings are supposed to flow to all “his children.” Aaron was given to Moses to be his prophet because he could speak well. As Aaron, then, was speaker, mouth, or prophet, to Moses; so the pope is now mouth, or prophet, or speaker, of the papacy, and no more. He is virtually stripped of his dominion; he can prophesy, but his rule is a thing of name, and not a fact. A false prophet is he; truthless as Satan; sporting himself with his own deceivings, and thereby provoking a speedy fate, which is “capture and destruction.”
But, before he and the two-horned beast before whom he is now working, perish in the fiery European lake they are blowing into a flame, they must fulfil the mission to which they are appointed under this series of the sixth vial. The Sultan, the pope, and the emperor, are the demons of the crisis, and the mouths, or speakers, of the systems to which they belong. Forth from them are to proceed such measures of policy as will produce a general war.
These political measures are symbolized as “unclean spirits.” They are “spirits,” or influences, exerted through the policy of the three governments; and “unclean,” because nothing clean can proceed out of such mouths. Rome, Vienna, and Constantinople, are so many centres of intrigue, whence proceeds the evil that is to ruin the beast. I, say Rome, which, however, is not strictly correct. It should be, wherever the false prophet is for the time being, whether at Gaeta, or at Portici; for it is exceedingly questionable, if ever he reside again in Rome.
Then from Vienna, Constantinople, and the locality of the false prophet, are to go forth to “the kings of the earth,” and to “the kings of the whole habitable,” the results of these intrigues, which will stir up all their propensities to war. The ”kings of the earth” are here distinguished from the “kings of the habitable.” The former are the kings of Germany and Russia, &c.; while the latter are the kings of Roman Europe, such as of Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Sardinia, Naples, and Greece. They are all to be involved in war by the “unclean spirits” of the three demons, whose policy will bring about results that will ruin themselves, and astonish the world.
But why are these three political influences likened to frogs? “I saw,” says the apostle, “three unclean spirits like frogs come out of these mouths.” The interpretation, I conceive, is this. The frogs are the heraldic symbol of a power, which at the prophetic crisis is to be the proximate cause of the several policies which characterize the demon-mouths.
That is to say, if this frog-power had not struck out a new course of operation which deranged every thing, there would have been no ground for the Sultan, the emperor, and the pope, to change their policy, and all things would have gone on as usual.
The frogs, therefore, and “the spirits,” stand related to each other as cause and effect, the demons being only the media through which the frog-power brings about the fatalities of the two-horned beast and the false prophet; and it the same time brings upon the arena a power which is to overtop the horns, repress the frog-power itself, and build up the image of Nebuchadnezzar, preparatory to its being shivered to pieces on the mountains of Israel. In other words, the scenery of the thirteenth and fourteenth verses of this chapter is a symbolical representation of the working of things unto the judgment, when “they shall take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it to the end” (Dan. 7:26).
Who “they” are to whom the work of destruction is committed is obvious from the twenty-second verse, where it is written, ” judgment was given to the saints,” that is, in the higher sense, who do their work coevally with “the people of the saints,” or saints of the holy city, assuming the ruling-judgment “under the whole heaven.”
Now, from the evidence I am about to adduce, I think, I shall be able to convince the reader, that “the Frogs” are the symbol of the French democracy, the old enemy of the Beasts and their image. The testimony to establish this is as follows, gleaned from Elliot’s Hor. Apoc.
1. Montfaucon, in his Monumens de la Monarchie Francaise, p. 4, plate vi., gives a Frog as one of the monuments of the French king, Childeric; thus writing respecting it, “3. Another medal representing a frog, which was also an Egyptian symbol.” This was found A.D. 1623, at St. Brice, near Tournay, with other things belonging to Childeric. He reigned A.D. 456.
That is, before the Franks acknowledged the Roman Bishop.
2. In the “Monde Primitif, compare avec le Monde Moderne,” par M. Court de Gebelin, Paris, 1781, the author thus writes, p. 181, “Nous venons de voir que les Armoiries de la Guyenne sont un leopard, celles des Celtes (surtout les Belgiques) etoient un lion, et celles des Francs un crapaud. Le crapaud designe les marais dont sortirent les Francs.” And again, on p. 195, ” La Cosmographie de Munster (I. ii.) nous a transmit un fait tres remarquable dans ce genre. Marcomir, Roi des Francs, ayant penetre de la Westphalie dans le Tongre, vit en songe une figure a trois tetes, 1′ une de lion, l’autre d’aigle, la troisieme de crapaud. I1 consulta Ia dessus, ajoute on, un celebre Druide de la contree, appele Al Runus; et celuici 1’assura que cette figure designoit les trois puissances qui auroient regne successivemens sur les Gaules; les Celtes dont le symbole etoit le lion, les Romains designes par 1’aigle, et les Francs par le crapaud, a cause de leur marais.”*
* The following translation will serve for those who do not understand French. — In M. Court de Gebelin’s work, styled “The Primitive World compared with the Modern World,” he says, “The armorial hearings of Guyenne are a leopaid; those of the Celts (especially of the Belgians) are a lion; and of the French a frog. The Frog represents the marshes whence the French originated.” And again, ” The Cosmography of Munster has transmitted to us a very remarkable fact of this kind. Marcomir, king of the French, having penetrated from Westphalia into Tongres, saw in a dream a figure with three heads, the one of a lion, the other of an eagle, and the third of a frog. He consulted thereon, it is added, a celebrated druid of the country, named Al Runus; who assured him that this figure represented the three powers which had reigned successively over the Gauls; the Celts whose symbol was the lion; the Romans designated by the eagle, and the Francs by the frog because of their marshes.”
3. In the sixth century, xlvi of the prophecies of Nostra Damus (p. 251) translated my Garencieres of London, 1672, occur the following lines:
Unjuste sera un exil envoye
Par pestilence aux confins de non seigle;
Response au rouge le fera desvoye
Roi retirant a la Rane et a I’ aigle.
On which, Garencieres observes: “by the eagle he meaneth the emperor; and by the frog, the king of France; for, before he took the fleur de luce, the French bore three frogs.”
4. In Pynson’s edition of Fabyan’s Chronicle, at the beginning of the account of Pharamond (the first king of the
Franks who reigned at Treves about A. D. 420) there is a shield of arms bearing three frogs, (p. 37, Ellis’ edit.); with the words beneath,
The banner underneath, having upon it the three frogs, is from ancient tapestry in the cathedral of Rheims, representing battle scenes of Clovis, who is said to have been baptized there upon his conversion to Romanism.
The next engraving is from the Franciscan church at Innspruck; where is a row of tall bronze figures, twenty-three in number; representing principally the most distinguished personages of the House of Austria; the armour and costumes being those chiefly of the 16th century, and the workmanship excellent. Among them is Clovis, king of France, and on his shield three fleur de lis and three frogs, with the words underneath, “Clodovaeus der i Christenlich kunig von Frankreich; that is, Clovis, first christian king of France.
1. Uptonus de Militari Officio, p. 155, states that three frogs were the old arms of France, without specifying what race of kings.
2. Professor Schott supposes the three frogs to have been distinctly the original arms of the Bourbons; bourbe signifying mud. This may have been the case. When their family became the dynasty of France, they probably assumed the frogs as their arms, being kings of the Franks, whose svmbol it had been so long. The Bourbons arose out of the mud which is natural to frogs, and by the revolution of 1848 are deep in the mud again!
3. Typoticus, p. 75, gives as the device on a coin of Louis VI., the last French king before Hugh Capet, the first of the Bourbons, a frog with the inscription Mihi terra lacusque, land and water are mine.
4. In the “Encyclopoedia Metropolitana,” on Heraldry, it is stated that “Paulus Emilius blazons the arms of France, argent three diadems gules;” others say, they bear three toads, sable in a field vert (ap. Gwillim, c. I.) which, if ever they did, it must have been before the existence of the present rules.”
Such is the testimony I have to offer in the case before us. The conviction produced on rny mind is, that the Frogs in the prophecy are the symbol of the French democratic power. It will be seen from the armorial shield of Clovis, that the frogs and the lillies were both used as symbols. They are both indigenous to wet, or marshy lands, and therefore very fit emblems of the French, who came originally from the marshes of Westphalia.
But on the shield of Pharamond, so far back as A.D. 420, the frogs without the lillies appear in the armorial bearings of the Franks; and in the medal of Childeric I. there is no lilly, but the frog only. It would therefore seem from this, that the lillies were not in the original arms, but superadded many years after; and at length adopted by the Bourbons as the symbol of their race in its dominion over the frogs. These, then, represent the nation, and the lillies, or fleur de lis, the ruling dynasty. Now, if the apostle had said, “I saw three unclean spirits like lillies come out of the Mouths,” he would have intimated by such a similitude that the French Bourbons were the cause of the “unclean spirits” issuing forth from the sultan, the emperor, and the Roman prophet. But he does not say this; he says they were like frogs. The truth, then, is obvious. In A.D. 96, when John was an exile in Patmos, the Franks were savages in an unnamed country, living by hunting and fishing like American Indians.
But the Holy Spirit revealed to him, that the people would play a conspicuous part in the affairs of nations; and, foreseeing by what symbol they would represent themselves, he symbolized their nation it, and styled them “Frogs.” He informed him, that under the sixth vial their influence would be remarkably apparent.
That the Frog nation would have much to do with the dragon, beast, and false prophet; in fact, that so intimate and direct would their dealing be with them, that its effect would be perceived in the warlike tendency and influence of the measures proceeding from the sultan, the emperor, and the pope; who, being so completely entangled in the complications created by the policy of the Frog power, would in their endeavours to extricate themselves, involve the whole habitable in war, which would end in the destruction of the two-horned beast, and the false prophet, and in the subjugation of the surviving horns to a new Imperial dominion for a time.
The foregoing analyses of the eleventh, and sixteenth, chapters of Revefation will be found in no other book that I am aware of. It is entirely new. But, as I have said before, no interpretation of prophecy in relation to the past, or present, is worth any thing, which is not in harmony with facts. My interpretation must be tried by the same rule, and if it will not stand the test, then let it fade away into everlasting forgetfulness; but if it prove to be correct, I have no apprehension that it will be lost. Facts, then, I remark, are in strict accordance with the exposition given, as I shall briefly point out.
In the last week of Feb. 1848 the Parisian democracy, ever foremost in revolution, plucked the Bourbon Lilly from its throne, and thrust it deep into its native mud. This dynasty of a thousand years was abolished, and the nation resumed its original Westphalian right of choosing a ruler better suited to its taste. The Fleur de lis being thrown aside, the Frogs by a vote of six millions set over themselves the nephew of their democratic emperor, who had done such good service in executing judgment upon their enemies.
The president of the French Republic is therefore the incarnation of the Frog power, as the Bourbons were of the beast while ruling the tenth of the kingdoms. From February the outbreaks of the democracy in other countries became frequent and formidable; and the National Assembly and its Provisional Government constituted in fact the Parliament and executive of the democracy throughout Europe. Under the shadow of their favor Germany and Italy became insurgent, and Hungary followed in the wake of insurrection. The earth shook on every side.
Urged on by its democracy, Sardinia attacked the Beast; and, provoked by the treachery of the false prophet, the people of Rome rose, and scared him into exile. After this, the plucking up of the Lombard kingdom by the roots, and the defeat of the Sardinian horn at Novara, by which the Little Horn became triumphant in Italy, caused the Frogs to seize on Rome that their interests in the Peninsular might be preserved from annihilation. By this move the Frog- nation placed itself in antagonism to the two-horned Beast and the false prophet.
The Frogs invite the prophet to return to Rome; in other words, to put himself in their power, for which, with the experience of French hospitality towards his predecessors before his eyes, and the treatment he has already received in Rome, he has not the smallest inclination, notwithstanding all his professions to the countrary. If he were to return, he could not remain there twenty-four hours in the absence of a strong miitary force; and the Frogs will consent to no other than their own; for they occupied Rome, not out of love to the pope, but as a check upon Austria in Italy.
The truth is, Austria and the pope are natural allies; and are as intimately related as the eyes and mouth of a man are to the man himself. Their fortunes are inseparable. The fate of one is the fate of both, even perdition by the burning flame of war.
The army of the Frog-power has seized upon Rome, and the false prophet will not return, because he regards the Frogs as his real foes. If the Austrians had possession of the city he would go back in triumph; but this not being the case, he is obliged to temporize until the times be more propitious. After this manner, then, the Frogs have become an obstacle in the way of Austria and the pope, who are both desirous of their expulsion from Rome. They have become the occasion of unclean spirits proceeding from the emperor and the Roman prophet, which will yet embroil them all, and in the end accomplish the destruction of the Austro-papal dominion.
In regard to the Sultan, the Frogs are seen exerting their influence upon him. They have assured him of their support in case of his being attacked by Russia. This promise is sure to bring on a war between the Porte and the Autocrat. If the Sultan had been left to himself, being weak, he would have yielded and so have avoided war; but being energized by France and England, two strong military and naval powers the Sultan feels himself a match for Russia, and prepared to assume a bold and warlike attitude.
But these assurances will only lure him on to ruin. No powers, however strong, can save dominions fore-doomed of God. Their friendship for the Sultan will be as fatal to him, as the friendship of England for Austria and the pope were to them in the days of Napoleon. The autocrat, being God’s sword upon Turkey, will be too strong for them both; for in the tumult and confusion created by the measures of the sultan, the emperor, and the Roman bishop, their several dominions will be abolished, and the autocrat remain lord of the ascendant.
If the reader take a survey of Europe as exhibited in the events of the last two years (First edition was Published in 1850.), he will see the view I have presented still further illustrated. The pope and the emperor have been the principals who have brought about the wars on the continent.
The unclean spirit of the Little Horn went forth to Russia and brought down its hosts upon Hungary; it is also going forth to Prussia in opposition to the democratic constitution it is developing at Erfurt; and, in concert with Russia, it has gone forth to the sultan, with whom it has interrupted its former amicable relations. Before the pope consented to be restored by France, an unclean spirit went forth from him likewise, and brought the Austrians, Neapolitans, and Spaniards, into his states, when he found the Frogs could not be excluded. I pointed these things out to thousands of people in my lectures, and told them, that in regard to Hungary they were deceiving themselves if they imagined the Magyars would succeed in their war of independence.
That Hungary was a brittle toe-kingdorn, and one of the three horns which were to be “plucked up by the roots” by the Little Horn. Meetings of sympathy for the Hungarians were being held throughout England; and arriving every week of Austrian defeats, and Magyar victories. Still, I said, if I have fallen upon the true principles of interpretation, it is impossible for the Hungarians to triumph. So certainly incorrect did some regard this view of the matter, that they said, when I returned to London I should have to expunge what I had advanced about Hungary from the manuscript before I published this book. A preacher who had listened to me at one place, was so convinced of my error, that in his next discourse he predicted the certain triumph of the “brave Hungarians” over all their enemies. But, alas for him. Men should never prophecy of the future from present appearances.
Though these were against my exposition, I was persuaded it would turn out in the end as I had said; and I added furthermore, that “an unclean spirit ” was to go forth out of the mouth of the dragon, as well as from the mouths of the beast and of the false prophet; but that while we could discern “the spirits” issuing forth from these, we, did not yet perceive one issuing from the sultan: nevertheless, though then calm and tranquil, we should soon see a warlike disposition manifest itseff in his policy growing out of the Hungarian war.
The unclean spirit of the Little Horn had brought the Russians into Hungary, which would only whet their appetites for Turkey, whom they would prepare to devour next. In two or three weeks after making these statements, which as I have said before, were not whispered in a corner, but spoken before thousands, all Europe was astounded by the of Gorgey’s surrender, and the ruin of the Magyar cause. The details are known to every one. And as I had said, so it came to pass, Turkish sympathy with the Hungarians, and hospitality to the refugees, was made a causus belli by the autocrat; and on the refusal of the sultan to violate it, diplomatic relations were broken off between Russia, Austria, and Turkey; and the “un-clean spirit” energized by the Frogs, exhibits even the sultan as a belligerent.
The mission, then, of these three demons for the brief period which remains of their political existence, is to stir up the nations to war, which will redound to their own confusion. The press is prophesying smooth things, and persuading the world of the moderation of the Autocrat, and of the good intentions of Austria and the Pope! It has told us several times that the extradition affair was composed and that peace between Russia and Turkey will not be interrupted; and as often it unsays what it had before affirmed. But, the reader need place no reliance upon paper speculations.
Their scribes know not what God has revealed, consequently their reasonings are vain, and sure to take a wrong direction. As records of facts, the journals are invaluable; but if a person permit his opinions to be formed by the views presented, in leading articles, and the, letters of “our own correspondents,” he will be continually mislead, and compelled to eat his words for evermore.
The Bible is the enlightener. If men would not be carried about by every wind that blows, let them study this. It will unfold to them the future, and make them wiser than the world. The coming years will not be years of peace. The policy of the Autocrat will be to throw his adversaries off their guard, and take the Sultan by surprise. He is to “come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he will enter into the countries, and overflow and pass over. And many countries shall be overthrown” (Dan. 11:40, 41). This is the career marked out for him; which neither France, nor England, nor the world combined can obstruct, or circumvent.