Produced by Charlene Taylor, Bryan Ness, Wayne Hammond and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned
images of public domain material from the Google Books
project.)







[Transcriber’s Note:

Characters preceded by a caret(^) are in superscript, and are enclosed
in curly brackets, i. e. {th}.

Italicized text delimited by underscores.

This project uses utf-8 encoded characters. If some characters are not
readable, check your settings of your browser to ensure you have a
default font installed that can display utf-8 characters.]




  THE

  WORKS

  OF

  RICHARD HURD, D. D.

  LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.

  VOL. V.


  Printed by J. Nichols and Son,
  Red Lion Passage, Fleet-Street, London.




  THE

  WORKS

  OF

  RICHARD HURD, D. D.

  LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.

  IN EIGHT VOLUMES.

  VOL. V.

  [Illustration]

  LONDON:
  PRINTED FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, STRAND.
  1811.




THEOLOGICAL WORKS.

VOL. I.




TWELVE SERMONS

INTRODUCTORY

TO THE STUDY OF

THE PROPHECIES.




AN

INTRODUCTION

TO THE STUDY OF THE

PROPHECIES

CONCERNING THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH;

AND, IN PARTICULAR,

CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF PAPAL ROME:

IN TWELVE SERMONS,

PREACHED IN LINCOLN’S-INN-CHAPEL,

AT THE LECTURE OF

THE RIGHT REV. WILLIAM WARBURTON,

LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER.

  _Ita, si potuero, stylo moderabor meo, ut nec ea, quæ supersint,
  dicam, nec ea, quæ satis sint, prætermittam._
                                    Augustin. C. D. l. xvii. c. 1.




TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

WILLIAM, LORD MANSFIELD,

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND,

AND

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

SIR JOHN EARDLEY WILMOT, KNT.

LATE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COMMON PLEAS,

TRUSTEES FOR THIS LECTURE,

THE FOLLOWING SERMONS

ARE MOST HUMBLY INSCRIBED

BY THE AUTHOR,

                     R. HURD.

  LINCOLN’S-INN,
  MARCH 2, 1772.




EXTRACT

FROM THE

DEED OF TRUST

FOR FOUNDING THIS LECTURE.


An Indenture, bearing date July 21, 1768, sets forth, “That the right
reverend WILLIAM Lord Bishop of Gloucester has transferred the sum of
500_l. Bank four per cent. annuities consolidated_, to the right
honourable WILLIAM LORD MANSFIELD, Lord Chief Justice of his Majesty’s
Court of King’s Bench, the right honourable SIR JOHN EARDLEY WILMOT,
Lord Chief Justice of his Majesty’s Court of Common Pleas, and the
honourable CHARLES YORKE[1], of Lincoln’s-Inn, in the county of
Middlesex, UPON TRUST, for the purpose of founding a _Lecture_, in
the form of a Sermon, _To prove the truth of Revealed Religion in
general, and of the Christian in particular, from the completion of the
Prophecies in the Old and New Testament, which relate to the Christian
church, especially to the apostacy of Papal Rome_: That, in case of
any vacancy in this trust by the decease of any one or more of the
above-mentioned Trustees, _the place or places shall be filled up, from
time to time and as occasion may require, by the surviving Trustees,
or Trustee, or by the Executors of the survivor of them_: That the
Trustees _shall appoint the Preacher of Lincoln’s-Inn for the time
being, or some other able Divine of the Church of England_, to preach
this Lecture: That the Lecture shall be preached every year _in the
Chapel of Lincoln’s-Inn_ (_if the Society give leave_[2]) _and on the
following days, viz. the first Sunday after Michaelmas Term, the Sunday
next before and the Sunday next after Hilary Term_: That the Lecturer
shall not preach the said Lecture longer than _for the term of_ FOUR
YEARS, _and shall not again be nominated to preach the same_: And, when
the term of four years is expired, that the said Lecturer shall _print
and publish, or cause to be printed and published, all the Sermons or
Lectures, that shall have been so preached by him_.”




  CONTENTS

  OF

  THE FIFTH VOLUME.


  SERMON I.

  False ideas of Prophecy.

  2 PETER i. 21.

  _Prophecy came not in old time by the will of
  man: but holy men of God spake, as they
  were moved by the Spirit of God._


  SERMON II.

  The true idea of Prophecy.

  REV. xix. 10.

  _The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy._           21


  SERMON III.

  Conclusions from the true idea of Prophecy.

  REV. xix. 10.

  _The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy._           44


  SERMON IV.

  The general argument from Prophecy.

  JOHN xiii. 19.

  _Now I tell you before it come, that, when it
  is come to pass, ye may believe, that I am
  He._                                                          74


  SERMON V.

  Prophecies concerning Christ’s _first coming_.

  ISAIAH xlii. 9.

  _Behold, the former things are come to pass,
  and new things do I declare: before they
  spring forth, I tell you of them._                           102


  SERMON VI.

  Prophecies concerning Christ’s _second coming_.

  ISAIAH xlii. 9.

  _Behold, the former things are come to pass,
  and new things do I declare: before they
  spring forth, I tell you of them._                           132


  SERMON VII.

  Prophecies concerning Antichrist.

  1 Ep. JOHN ii. 18.

  —_ye have heared that Antichrist shall come._               171


  SERMON VIII.

  Prejudices against the doctrine of Antichrist.

  1 Ep. JOHN ii. 18.

  —_ye have heared that Antichrist shall come._               205


  SERMON IX.

  The Prophetic style considered.

  EZEKIEL xx. 49.

  —_They say of me, Doth he not speak parables?_              233


  SERMON X.

  The style and method of the Apocalypse.

  EZEKIEL xx. 49.

  —_They say of me, Doth he not speak parables?_              260


  SERMON XI.

  Prophetic characters of Antichrist.

  LUKE xii. 56.

  —_How is it, that ye do not discern this time?_             286


  SERMON XII.

  Uses of this Inquiry into the Prophecies—Conclusion.

  REV. xxii. 7.

  _Behold, I come quickly: Blessed is he that
  keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this
  book._                                                   333-352


  APPENDIX:

  _Containing an anonymous Letter to the Author
  of these Sermons, with his Answer
  to it._                                                      363




SERMON I.

FALSE IDEAS OF PROPHECY.

2 PETER, i. 21.

 _Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God
 spake, as they were moved by the Spirit of God._


The argument from prophecy, in support of the Christian revelation,
would be thought more conclusive, at least would be more distinctly
apprehended, if men could be kept from mixing their own prejudices and
preconceptions with it.

The general question may be expressed thus—“Whether the predictions
in the Old and New Testament do not appear to have been so far, and
in such sense, fulfilled, as to afford a reasonable conviction, that
they _came not_, as the text speaks, _by the will of man, but from the
Spirit of God_.”

In examining this question, the predictions themselves cannot be too
diligently studied, or too cautiously applied: But, while this work
is carrying on, we are still to suppose, and should not for a moment
forget, that they _may_ be, what they manifestly claim to be, of divine
suggestion; I mean, we are to admit, not the truth indeed, but the
possibility, of such suggestion, till we can fairly make it appear that
they are of human contrivance, only.

It will not be denied, that the tenour of Scripture, as well as
the text, clearly asserts the divine original and direction of the
prophecies. A just reasoner on the subject will, therefore, proceed
on this supposition, and only try whether it be well founded. He
will consider, whether the construction of the prophecies, and the
application of them, be such, as may accord to those pretensions; and
will not argue against them on other principles, which they do not
admit, or suppose. All this is plainly nothing more than what may be
expected from a fair inquirer, and what the rules of good reasoning
exact from him.

The use of this conduct would be, To prevent, or set aside, all those
fancies and imaginations which too frequently mislead inquirers
into the evidence of prophecy; which fill their minds with needless
perplexities, and disgrace their books with frivolous and impertinent
disquisitions. And, because I take it to be of principal moment, that
this _use_ be perfectly seen and understood, I shall, _first_, apply
myself to justify and explain it.

It is true that _prophecy_, in the very idea of that term, at least in
the scriptural idea of it, implies the divine agency; and that, exerted
not merely in giving the faculty itself, but in directing all its
operations.

Yet I know not how it is that, when men address themselves to the study
of the prophetic scriptures, they are apt to let this so necessary
idea slip out of their minds; and to discourse upon them just as they
would or might do, on the supposition that the prophet was left at
liberty to dispense this gift in all respects, as he should think
proper. No wonder then, that they should misconceive of its character,
and entertain very different notions about the exercise of this power
from what the Scriptures give them of it. Nay it is no wonder that
they should even treat the subject with some scorn, while they judge
of it by the rule of human prudence, and not of divine wisdom: for,
though they would readily own themselves incapable of pronouncing on
the secret counsels of God, if prophecy, in its whole administration,
be regarded as proceeding merely from him; yet, from their knowledge of
human nature, they would think, and with some reason, they were well
able to conceive how the spirit of prophecy would be administered, if
man had the disposal of this spirit committed to him.

Now it happens, as I said, (by an inexcusable perverseness, or
inattention, indeed, yet in fact it so happens) that, to the
consideration of the argument from prophecy, as applied to the proof of
the Christian religion, many inquirers bring with them this strange and
fatal prejudice; and then their reasonings, or rather conjectures, on
the SUBJECT, the END, and the DISPENSATION of prophecy, are only such,
as this prejudice may be expected to inspire.

I. Judging for ourselves, and by the light of human investigation only,
there might be some ground for supposing, that, if it should please God
at any time to confer the gift of prophecy on his favoured servants,
they would be solely or chiefly commissioned to unfold the future
fortunes of the most conspicuous states and kingdoms in the world: that
so divine a power would embrace, as its peculiar object, the counsels
and enterprizes, the successes and triumphs of the most illustrious
nations; those especially, which should rise to the summit of empire by
generous plans of policy, and by the efforts of public virtue; of _free
states_, in a word, such as we know to have flourished in the happier
ages of Greece, and such as we still contemplate with admiration in
the vast and awful fabric of Consular Rome. This we might think a fit
object for the prophetic spirit to present to us; as corresponding in
some degree to the sublime character of a prophet; and as most worthy,
in our conceptions, of the divine attention and regard.

But how are we surprized to find that this astonishing power, the most
signal gift of Heaven to mankind, hath, in its immediate application
at least, respected, many times, obscure individuals, whose names and
memory are only preserved in one barbarous chronicle, hath been chiefly
employed, and, as we are ready to express it, thrown away on one single
state, or rather family; inconsiderable in the extent of its power or
territory; sequestered from the rest of the nations, and hardly known
among them[3]; with some mention, perhaps, of greater things, but
incidentally touched, as it may seem, and as they chanced to have some
connexion with the interests of this sordid people!

Was this a stage, on which it might be expected that the God of heaven
would condescend to display the wonders of his prescience; when He
kept aloof, as it were, from more august theatres, and would scarcely
vouchsafe to have the skirts of his glory seen by the nobler and more
distinguished nations of the World?

Such questions as these are sometimes asked. But they are surely
asked by those, who consider the prophets, as acting wholly on human
views and motives; and not as over-ruled in all their predictions by
_the spirit of God_. For it is natural enough for vain man, if left
to himself in the exercise of the prophetic power, to turn his view
towards such objects as appear to him great, in preference to others;
and to estimate that greatness by the lustre of fame, in which they
shine out to the observation of mankind. But a moment’s reflection may
shew the probability, the possibility at least, that _God’s thoughts
are not as our thoughts_; and that, if the prophet’s foresight be under
the divine influence, there may be reason enough to direct it towards
such scenes and objects, as we might be apt to undervalue or overlook.
It is even very conceivable, that, if God be the dispenser of prophecy,
and not man, all that seems great and illustrious in human affairs may
to his all-judging eye appear small and contemptible[4]; and, on the
other hand, what we account as nothing, may, for infinite reasons,
unknown to us, but so far as he is pleased to discover them, be of
that importance as to merit the attention of all his prophets from the
foundation of the world.

It is evident, then, that to reason in this manner on the subject of
divine prophecy, is to suffer ourselves to be misled by a poor and
vulgar prejudice; and to forget, what we should ever have present to
us, the claim of God’s prophets to speak, not as themselves _will_, but
as they are _moved by his Spirit_.

II. The END, or ultimate purpose of prophetic illumination, is another
point, on which many persons are apt to entertain strange fancies, and
to frame unwarrantable conclusions, when they give themselves leave to
argue on the low supposition, before mentioned.

1. It is then hastily surmized that the scriptural prophecies, if any
such be acknowledged, could only be designed, like the Pagan oracles,
to sooth the impatient mind under its anxiety about future events;
to signify beforehand to states or individuals, engaged in high or
hazardous undertakings, what the issue of them would be, that so they
might suit their conduct to the information of the prophet, and either
pursue their purpose with vigour, or expect their impending fate with
resignation. For, what other or worthier end, will some say, can
Heaven propose to itself by these extraordinary communications, than
to prepare and qualify such events as it decrees to bring to pass; to
animate desponding virtue, on the one hand, or to relieve predestined
misery, on the other; to adapt itself, in short, to our necessities
by a clear discovery of its will in those many intricate situations,
which perplex human prudence, elude human foresight, and, but for
this previous admonition, would bear too hard on the natural force,
or infirmity of the human mind? Some such idea, as this, was plainly
entertained by those of the Pagan philosophers who concluded, _from the
existence of a divine power, that there must needs be such a thing as
divination_[5]. They thought the attributes of their gods, if any such
there were, concerned in giving some notice of futurity to mankind.

2. Others, again, encouraged in this conjectural ingenuity by partial
views of scripture, come to persuade themselves that prophecy is an
act of _special grace and favour_, not to this or that state, or
individuals, indiscriminately, as either may seem to stand in need of
it; but to one peculiar and chosen people, who, on some account or
other, had merited this extraordinary distinction.

Self-love seems to have suggested this idea to the ancient and modern
Jews; and many others, I doubt, are ready enough to suppose with them,
that prophecy, under the Mosaic dispensation, had no other reasonable
use, or end.

3. Lastly, there are those who erect their thoughts to nobler
contemplations, and conclude that this intercourse between heaven and
earth can only be carried on with the sublime view of preserving an
awful sense of Providence in an impious and careless world.

Vanity, or superstition, may they say, has suggested to particular men,
or to societies of men, that their personal or civil concerns are of
moment enough to be the subject of divine prophecies, vouchsafed merely
for their own proper relief or satisfaction. But nothing less than the
maintenance of God’s supreme authority over his moral creation could
be an object worthy of his interposing in the affairs of men, in so
remarkable a manner. To keep alive in their minds a prevailing sense of
their dependance upon him, is, then, the ultimate end of prophecy: and
what more suitable (will they perhaps add, when warmed with this moral
enthusiasm,) to the best ideas we can form of divine wisdom, than that
this celestial light should be afforded to such ages or nations as are
most in want of that great and salutary principle?

There is reason to believe, that many of the ancient speculatists
reasoned thus on the subject of divination. For, as they argued _from
the existence of their gods, to the necessity of divination_; so,
again, they turned the argument the other way, _and from the reality of
divination, inferred the existence and providence of their gods_[6].
In drawing the _former_ conclusion, they shewed themselves to be in
the system of those who maintain, that the end of prophecy is _the
instruction of men in their civil or personal concerns_: when they drew
the _latter_, they seemed to espouse the more enlarged sentiments of
such as make the end of prophecy to be, _The instruction of men in the
general concerns of religion_.

I omit other instances, that might be given; and concern myself no
further with these, than just to observe from them; That the foundation
of all such systems is laid in the prejudices of their respective
patrons; conjecturing rather what _use_ might be made of this
faculty, and to what purpose men, according to their different views
or capacities, would probably apply it, than regarding it, with due
reverence, as directed by the spirit of God. For then they would see,
that not one of those ends, nor any other of human conjecture, could be
safely relied upon, as being that of prophetic inspiration. Not that
all these ends need be rejected as manifestly unworthy of the divine
intention; perhaps, each of them, in a certain sense, and with some
proper limitation, might without impiety be conceived to enter into
it. But neither could it be presumed, if none of those ends could have
been pointed out, that therefore there was no reasonable end of divine
prophecy; nor could it with modesty be affirmed that the noblest of
these ends was certainly that, which the wisdom of God proposed chiefly
and ultimately to accomplish by it, unless the information had been
given by himself.

III. But this folly of commenting on prophecy by the false lights of
the imagination is never more conspicuous, than when the DISPENSATION
of this gift, I mean the _mode_ of its conveyance, comes to exercise
the curiosity of presumptuous men.

“If it be true, will some say, that the Supreme Being hath at any time
condescended to enlighten human ignorance by a discovery of future
events, these divine notices, whatever the _end_ or _subject_ of them
might be, must have been given in terms so precise, and so clearly
predictive of the events to which they are applied, that no doubt could
remain either about the interpretation or completion of them.

On the contrary, these pretended prophecies are expressed so
ambiguously or obscurely, are so involved in metaphor and darkened by
hieroglyphics, that no clear and certain sense can be affixed to them,
and the sagacity of a second prophet seems wanting to explain the
meaning of the first.

Then, again, when we come to verify these predictions by the light
of history, the correspondence is so slight many times, and so
indeterminate, that none but an easy faith can assure itself, that
they have, in a proper sense, been fulfilled. At the least, there
is always room for some degree of suspense and hesitation: either
the accomplishment fails in some particulars, or other events might
be pointed out, to which the prophecy equally corresponds: so that
the result is, a want of that entire and perfect conviction, which
prophecy, no doubt, was intended to give, and, when fulfilled, must
supply[7].

Indeed, continue these inquirers, if our prophecies had been derived
from no higher an original, than that of Pagan oracles, we might well
enough have supposed them to be of this stamp. When men had nothing to
trust to, in their predictions, but their own ingenuity, they did well
to deal in equivocal or enigmatic expression, and might leave it to
chance, or to the passions of their votaries, to find an application
for their random conjectures. But when the prophet is, what he assumes
to be, an interpreter of heaven, he may surely afford to speak plainly,
and to deliver nothing to us but what shall appear, with the fullest
evidence, to be accomplished in the event.”

The invidious comparison, here made, between Scriptural prophecies
and Pagan oracles, will be considered in its place. To the general
principle, assumed by these inquirers, _That divine prophecy must be
delivered with the utmost clearness and perspicuity, and fulfilled
with irresistible evidence_, it may be sufficient to reply, as before,
That, though these inquirers use the words, _divine prophecy_, they
manifestly argue on the supposition of its human original, or at least
application. In this latter case, indeed, it is likely enough that the
prophet, for his own credit, or for what he might fancy to be the sole
end of prophecy, might chuse, if he were entrusted with the knowledge
of future events, to predict them with all possible clearness, and in
such sort that obstinacy itself must see and admit the completion of
them: but then, on the _former_ supposition, that the prophet was only
the minister and instrument of the divine counsels, in the high office
committed to him, they will do well to answer, at their leisure, the
following questions.

“How do they know in what manner, and with what circumstances, it was
fit for divine wisdom to dispense a knowledge of futurity to mankind?
How can they previously determine the degree of evidence with which
a prediction must be either given or fulfilled? What assurance have
they, that no reasonable ends could be served by prophecies, expressed
with some obscurity, and accomplished in a sense much below what may
seem necessary to unavoidable conviction? Can they even pretend, on
any clear principles of reason, that very important ends, perhaps
the most important, may not be answered by that mode of conveyance,
which appears to them so exceptionable? Can they, in a word, determine
before-hand, I do not say with certainty, but with any colour of
probability; what _must_ be the character of divine prophecy, when they
know not the reason, most undoubtedly not _all_ the reasons, why it is
given, and have even no right to demand, that it should be given at
all?”

Till these, and other questions of the like sort, be pertinently
answered, it must be in vain to censure the ways of Providence, as not
corresponding to our imperfect and short-sighted views.

So much for that _capital_ prejudice taken from the supposed obscurity
of the scriptural prophecies. Of _smaller_ scruples and difficulties
on this head, there is no end.

Men may ask, for instance, why the instruments employed in conveying
these celestial notices to mankind, are frequently so mean and
inconsiderable? The subject of a prediction is the downfall of some
mighty state, or the fortune of its governours. Why then is this
important revelation intrusted to an obscure priest, or sordid peasant,
in preference to the great persons, more immediately concerned in it[8]?

Again; some momentous events have been signified in dreams: why not to
persons awake, and in the full possession of their best faculties[9]?

And then, of those dreams, why are they sometimes sent to one man, and
the interpretation of them reserved for another[10]?

Why—But I have done with these frivolous interrogatories; which,
though pressed with all the advantage of Cicero’s rhetoric, have really
no force against _Pagan divination_; and therefore surely none, against
_Scriptural prophecy_; I mean, in the opinion of those who respect it
least.

In truth, they who put these questions (arguing, as they must do, on
the supposition that prophecy is divinely inspired) cannot excuse their
presumption, even to themselves: and they, to whom such questions are
proposed, will not, if they be wise, so much as attempt to resolve
them. For they have the nature of arguments addressed not only to the
_ignorance_, as we say, of the disputant, but to an ignorance clearly
_invincible_ by all the powers of human reason. Now to arguments of
this sort—_I know not_[11]—is the answer of good sense, as well as of
modesty, and, to a just reasoner, more satisfactory by far, than any
solution whatever of the difficulty proposed[12].

Not that reason is to be wholly silenced on the argument of prophecy:
for then every species of imposture would be ready to flow in upon
us. The _use_, we should make both of that faculty, and of these
preliminary considerations on the _subject_, the _end_, and the
_dispensation_ of prophecy is, briefly, this, To inquire, whether
_any_ prophecies have been given—in what sense they are reasonably
to be interpreted—and how far, and whether in any proper sense, they
have been fulfilled: to examine them, in a word, by their own claims,
and on the footing of their own pretensions; that is, to argue on the
supposition that they may be divine, till they can be evidently shewn
to be otherwise.

This is clearly to act suitably to our own faculties; to keep within
the sphere of our duty; and to reap the proper benefit, whatever
it be, of a sober inquiry into the authority, and character, and
accomplishment of the prophetic scriptures.

All the rest is idle cavil, and miserable presumption; equally
repugnant to the clearest dictates of right reason, and to that respect
which every serious man will think due to the subject, and to himself.




SERMON II.

THE TRUE IDEA OF PROPHECY.

REV. xix. 10.

_The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy._


It is very clear in what manner common sense instructs us to prosecute
all inquiries into the divine conduct. Wise men _collect_, from what
they see done in the system of nature, so far as they are able to
collect it, the intention of its author. They will conclude, in like
manner, from what they find delivered in the system of revelation, what
the views and purposes of the revealer were.

Prophecy, which makes so considerable a part of that system, must,
therefore, be its own interpreter. My meaning is, that, setting
aside all presumptuous imaginations of our own, we are to take our
ideas of what prophecy _should_ be, from what, in fact, we find it
to have been. If it be true (as the Apostle says, and as the thing
itself speaks) that _the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit
of God_[13], there cannot possibly be any way of acquiring right
notions of prophecy, but by attending to what the spirit of prophecy
hath revealed of itself. They, who admit the divine original of those
scriptures, which attest the reality, and alone, as they suppose,
contain the records, of this extraordinary dispensation, are more than
absurd, are impious, if they desert this principle. And they, who
reject or controvert their claim to such original, cannot, on any other
principle, argue pertinently against that dispensation.

In short, believers and unbelievers, whether they would support, or
overturn, the system of prophecy, must be equally governed by the
representation given of it in scripture. The _former_ must not presume,
on any other grounds, to assert the wisdom and fitness of that system:
and the _latter_ will then take a reasonable method of discrediting,
if by such means they can discredit, the pretensions of it. For, as to
vindicate prophecy on any principles but its own, can do it no honour;
so, to oppose it on any other, can neither prejudice the cause itself,
nor serve any reasonable end of the opposer.

To scripture then we must go for all the information we would have
concerning the _use_ and _intent_ of prophecy: and the text, to look no
farther, will clearly reveal this great secret to us.

But, before we proceed to reason from the text, in which, as it is
pretended, this discovery is made, it will be necessary to explain its
true meaning.

St. John, in this chapter of the Revelations, from which the text is
taken, had been shewn the downfall of Babylon, and the consequent
exaltation of the church, in its closest union with Christ, prefigured
under the Jewish idea of a _marriage_. To so delightful a vision, the
Angel, in whose presence, and by whose ministry, this scene of glory
had been disclosed, subjoins this triumphant admonition—_Write_, says
he; _Blessed are they which are called to the marriage of the Lamb.
These are the true sayings of God._

The Apostle, struck with this emphatic address, and contemplating with
grateful admiration so joyful a state of things, and the divinity of
that fore-sight by which it was predicted, _falls down at the angel’s
feet to worship him. But he said into me, See, thou do it not; I am thy
fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus:
worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy._

The sense is plainly this: Direct thy acknowledgment for this important
discovery, and that religious adoration, which it inspires, to God only
who revealed it, and not to _me_, who am but thy fellow-servant in this
office of bearing testimony to Jesus: I said _in bearing testimony
to Jesus_; for know, that _the spirit of prophecy_, with which I am
endowed, and by which I am enabled to foretell these great things, is
but, in other words, _the testimony of Jesus_; it has no other use
or end, but to do honour to him; the prophet, whether he be angel or
man, is only the minister of God to bear witness to his Son; and his
commission is ultimately directed to this one purpose of manifesting
the glories of his kingdom. In discharging this prophetic office, which
thou admirest so much, I am then but the witness of Jesus, and so to be
considered by thee in no other light than that of thy fellow-servant.

It is evident from the expression, that the text was intended to
give some _special_ instruction to the Apostle, whose misguided
worship afforded the occasion of it. For, if the design had merely
been to enforce the general conclusion—_worship God_—the premises
need only have been—_I am the servant of God, as well as thou_—for
from these premises it had followed, that therefore God, and not the
Angel, was to be worshiped. But the premises are not simply, _I am thy
fellow-servant_, but _I am the fellow-servant of those who have the
testimony of Jesus_: which clause indeed infers the same conclusion,
as the former; but, as not being necessary to infer it (for the
conclusion had been just and complete without it) was clearly added to
convey a precise idea of prophecy itself, as being wholly subservient
to Christ, and having no other use or destination, under its various
forms and in all the diversities of its administration, but to bear
testimony to him. Therefore the Angel says emphatically, in explanation
of that latter clause,—_For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit
of prophecy_—or, as the sentence, in our translation, should have
run[14], the order of its parts being inverted, _For the spirit of
prophecy is the testimony of Jesus_.

It may not be pretended that no more was meant by the text, than that
_the particular_ prophecy, here delivered, was in attestation of
Jesus: for then it would have been expressed with that limitation. The
terms, on the other hand, are absolute and indefinite—_the spirit of
prophecy_—whence we cannot but conclude that prophecy, in general, is
the subject of the proposition.

We have here, then, a remarkable piece of intelligence conveyed to us
(incidentally indeed conveyed, but not therefore the less remarkable)
concerning the nature and genius of prophecy. The text is properly
a key put into our hands, to open to us the mysteries of that
dispensation; which had in view ultimately the person of Christ and
the various revolutions of his kingdom—_The spirit of prophecy is_,
universally, _the testimony of Jesus_[15].

The expression, as I have shewn, is so precise as to leave no
reasonable doubt of its meaning. Yet it may further serve to justify
this interpretation, if we reflect, how exactly it agrees with all that
the Jewish prophets were understood to intend, and what Jesus himself
and his apostles assert was intended, by their predictions.

It were endless to enumerate all the Prophecies of the Old Testament
which have been supposed to point at Jesus: and the controversy
concerning the application of _some_ prophecies to him may be thought
difficult. But it is very certain that the Jews, before the coming of
Christ, gave this construction to their scriptures: they even looked
beyond the letter of their sacred books, and conceived _the testimony_
of the Messiah to be the soul and end of the commandment. _The spirit
of prophecy_ was firmly believed to intend that _testimony_, that the
expectation was general of some such person, as Jesus, to appear among
them, and at the very time in which he made his appearance. This,
I say, is an undoubted _fact_, what account soever may be given of
it; and so far evinces that the _principle_, delivered in the text,
corresponds entirely to the idea which the fathers entertained of the
prophetic spirit.

Next, Jesus himself appeals to the _spirit of prophecy_, as bearing
witness to his person and dispensation. _Search the Scriptures_,
says he to the Jews, _for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and
they are they which testify of_ ME[16]. Two things are observable in
these words. 1. If the Jews thought they had _eternal life_ in their
scriptures, they must needs have understood them in a spiritual sense;
for the _letter_ of them taught no such thing: and I know not what
_other_ spiritual sense, that should lead them to the expectation of
_eternal life_, they could put on their scriptures, but that prophetic,
or typical sense, which respected the Messiah. 2. Jesus here expressly
asserts, that their scriptures _testified of him_. How generally they
did so, he explained at large in that remarkable conversation with two
of his disciples, after his resurrection, when, _beginning at Moses
and_ ALL _the prophets, he expounded unto them in_ ALL _the scriptures
the things concerning himself_[17].

The _Apostles_ of Jesus are frequent and large in the same appeal to
the spirit of prophecy. _Those things_, says St. Peter to the Jews,
_which God had shewed by the mouth of_ ALL _his prophets, that Christ
should suffer, he hath so fulfilled_[18]. And, again, after quoting the
authority of Moses, _Yea, and_ ALL _the prophets from Samuel, and those
that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of
these days_[19].

St. Paul seems to have composed some entire epistles[20], with a view
of shewing that Christ was prefigured in the Law itself, and that He
was, in truth, the substance of the whole Jewish dispensation. So
thoroughly, according to him, did _the spirit of prophecy_ pervade that
system, and so clearly did it bear testimony to Jesus! Whence, in his
apology before Agrippa, we find him asserting of the whole Christian
doctrine, _that he said none other things than those which the
prophets and Moses did say should come_[21].

More citations cannot be necessary on so plain a point. And I bring
these to shew, not the truth of the principle itself (which is not now
under consideration) but the certainty of the interpretation, here
given to the text. For I make it say no more (though it says it indeed
more precisely) than the scriptures themselves were _understood_ by
the Jews to say, and are represented by Jesus and his Apostles, as
_actually_ saying, when I affirm its sense to be, “That the scope and
end of prophecy was the testimony of Jesus.”

On this principle, then, we are to regulate all our reasonings on the
subject of prophecy. They who maintain, and they who would confute,
its pretensions, must equally go on this supposition. If the system of
prophecy can be justified, or so far as it can be justified, on these
grounds, the defence must be thought solid and satisfactory; because
those grounds are not arbitrarily assumed, but are such as that system
itself acknowledges. On the contrary, whatever advantage may be fairly
taken of those grounds to discredit prophecy, must needs be allowed,
for the same reason.

Again: On the believer’s scheme, that prophecy is of divine
inspiration, there can be no _presumption_ in arguing from the grounds,
here supposed, in favour of prophecy. Because, though all conclusions
from a principle of human invention, must be hazardous and rash, yet
from a principle of divine authority, many sober and just inferences
may be drawn. For it is one thing, to discover a principle, and
another, to argue justly and cogently from it.

On the other hand, the unbeliever, who regards the whole system
of prophecy as of human invention, must yet be allowed to argue
pertinently from the same grounds, because they are the proper grounds
of that system: his arguments may be rightly formed, though the
principle, from which he argues, appear to him of no authority. The
rules of logic will indeed oblige him to argue on that principle; for,
otherwise, he combats, not his adversary’s position, but a phantom of
his own raising.

Having premised thus much concerning the right interpretation of the
text, and the important relation it bears to the present subject, I
should now proceed to inquire what conclusions naturally and fairly
result from it. For from this assumption, that _Jesus is the end
of prophecy_, it will, I think, follow very evidently, that the
greater part of those objections which make so much noise, and are so
confidently urged, on the subject of prophecy, have no force at all in
them.

But, before we enter on that task, it may be useful to consider more
particularly what the ASSUMED PRINCIPLE itself is, and to pause a while
in contemplation of this idea.

The text, as here interpreted, and in full consonance with the tenor
of the sacred writings, implies this fact—that _Prophecy_ in general
(that is, all the prophecies of the Old and New Testament) hath its
ultimate accomplishment in the history and dispensation of Jesus.

But now, if we look into those writings, we find, 1. That prophecy is
of a prodigious extent; that it commenced from the fall of man, and
reaches to the consummation of all things: that, for many ages, it
was delivered darkly, to few persons, and with large intervals from
the date of one prophecy to that of another; but, at length, became
more clear, more frequent, and was uniformly carried on in the line of
one people, separated from the rest of the world, among other reasons
assigned, for this principally, to be the repository of the divine
oracles: that, with some intermission, the spirit of prophecy subsisted
among that people, to the coming of Christ: that He himself and his
Apostles exercised this power in the most conspicuous manner; and
left behind them many predictions, recorded in the books of the New
Testament, which profess to respect very distant events, and even run
out to the end of time, or, in St. John’s expression, to that period,
_when the mystery of God shall be perfected_[22].

2. Further, besides the extent of this prophetic scheme, the dignity
of the _Person_, whom it concerns, deserves our consideration. He is
described in terms, which excite the most august and magnificent ideas.
He is spoken of, indeed, sometimes as being _the seed of the woman_,
and _as the son of man_; yet so as being at the same time of more than
mortal extraction. He is even represented to us, as being superior
to men and angels; as far above all principality and power, above all
that is accounted great, whether in heaven or in earth; as the word and
wisdom of God; as the eternal Son of the Father; as the heir of all
things, by whom he made the worlds; as the brightness of his glory, and
the express image of his person.

We have no words to denote greater ideas, than these: the mind of man
cannot elevate itself to nobler conceptions. Of such transcendent worth
and excellence is that Jesus said to be, to whom all the prophets bear
witness!

3. Lastly, the declared _purpose_, for which the Messiah, prefigured
by so long a train of prophecy, came into the world, corresponds to
all the rest of the representation. It was not to deliver an oppressed
nation from civil tyranny, or to erect a great civil empire, that is,
to atchieve one of those acts, which history accounts most heroic. No:
it was not a mighty state, a _victor people_—

    “_Non res Romanæ perituraque regna_—”

that was worthy to enter into the contemplation of this divine person.
It was another and far sublimer purpose, which HE came to accomplish;
a purpose, in comparison of which, all our policies are poor and
little, and all the performances of man as nothing. It was to deliver
a world from ruin; to abolish sin and death; to purify and immortalize
human nature; and thus, in the most exalted sense of the words, to be
the Saviour of all men, and the blessing of all nations.

There is no exaggeration in this account. I deliver the undoubted
sense, if not always the very words of scripture.

Consider then to what this representation amounts. Let us unite the
several parts of it, and bring them to a point. A spirit of prophecy
pervading all time—characterizing one person, of the highest
dignity—and proclaiming the accomplishment of one purpose, the most
beneficent, the most divine, that imagination itself can project—Such
is the scriptural delineation, whether we will receive it or no, of
that œconomy, which we call Prophetic!

And now then (if we must be reasoning from our ideas of _fit and
right_, to the rectitude of the divine conduct) let me ask, in one
word, whether, on the supposition that it should ever please the moral
Governor of the world to reveal himself by prophecy at all, we can
conceive him to do it, in a _manner_, or for _ends_ more worthy of him?
Does not the _extent_ of the scheme correspond to our best ideas of
that infinite Being, to whom all duration is but a point, and to whose
view all time is equally present? Is not the _object_ of this scheme,
the Lamb of God that was slain from the foundation of the world,
worthy, in our conceptions, of all the honour that can be reflected
upon him by so vast and splendid an œconomy? Is not the _end_ of this
scheme such as we should think most fit for such a scheme of prophecy
to predict, and for so divine a person to accomplish?

You see, every thing here is of a piece: all the parts of this
dispensation are astonishingly great, and perfectly harmonize with each
other.

We, who admit the divinity of those records, which represent to us
this state of things, cannot but be infinitely affected with it:
since, in that case, we only contemplate an undoubted fact, in this
representation. And it should further seem that even those, who
question that authority of scripture, must, if they be ingenuous,
confess themselves _struck_ by a representation at once so sublime and
consistent. They require, on all occasions, to have reasons of what
they call _fitness_, in the divine conduct, pointed out to them: Can
they overlook them here, where they are so obvious and so convincing?
At least, the credibility of such a scheme, as that of prophecy is in
Scripture represented to be, appears not, so far as we have hitherto
considered it, to be opposed or lessened in any degree by our _natural_
prejudices; by the best notions, I mean, which we can frame on this
subject; but is, indeed, much _strengthened_ and confirmed by them.

On the idea of such a scheme, as is here presented to us, I enlarge
no farther, at present, than just to make ONE general observation. It
is this: That the argument from prophecy is not to be formed from the
consideration of single prophecies, but from all the prophecies taken
together, and considered as making one system; in which, from the
mutual dependance and connection of its parts, preceding prophecies
prepare and illustrate those which follow, and these, again, reflect
light on the foregoing: just as, in any philosophical system, that
which shews the solidity of it, is the harmony and correspondence of
the whole, not the application of it, in particular instances.

Hence, though the evidence be but small, from the completion of any one
prophecy, taken separately, yet, that evidence being always something,
the amount of the whole evidence, resulting from a great number of
prophecies, all relative to the same design, may be considerable;
like many scattered rays, which, though each be weak in itself, yet,
concentred into one point, shall form a strong light, and strike the
sense very powerfully. Still more: this evidence is not simply a
growing evidence, but is indeed multiplied upon us, from the number of
reflected lights, which the several component parts of such a system
reciprocally throw upon each: till, at length, the conviction rise into
a high degree of moral certainty.

It hath been said indeed, of this scheme, or way of considering
prophecy, _that it is an imaginary scheme, of which there is not the
least trace in any of the four Gospels; and that it even contradicts
the whole evidence of prophecy, as it was understood and applied by
the Apostles and evangelists_[23].

But what, is there no trace of this scheme in the Gospel, when Jesus
himself _began at Moses and the prophets, and expounded_ [to his
disciples] _in ALL the scriptures the things concerning himself_? Is
this scheme contradictory to the evidence of prophecy, as understood by
the Apostles, when St. Peter argued with the Jews _from what God had
spoken by the mouth of ALL his prophets, since the world began_?

Is not here a series of prophecies, expressly referred to, as running
up not only to the times of Moses[24], but to the beginning of the
world? And is not this series argued from, as constituting one entire
system of prophecy, and as affording an evidence distinct from that
which arises from the consideration of each prophecy, taken singly and
by itself?

But Jesus and his Apostles, usually, _applied the prophecies singly and
independently on each other, as so many different arguments for the
general truth of the Gospel_[25].

Could they do _otherwise_, when the occasions offered, in the course
of their ministry, to which those prophecies were to be applied? Or,
could they do _better_, in their discourses to the people, to whom
the argument from single prophecies would be more familiar, than that
complicated one, arising from a whole system? Does it follow, because
the prophecies were applied singly, that therefore they might not with
good reason be applied systematically; or that they may not now be so
applied, when we have to do with those, who are capable of entering
into this sort of argumentation? Will it be said that, because the
moral precepts of the Gospel are delivered singly, there is therefore
no such thing as a system of morality, or that the subject may not be
treated with propriety, and with advantage too, in that form?

On the whole, the prophecies of the Old and New Testament, having
clearly all the _qualities_ of what we call a system, that is,
consisting of many particulars, dependent on each other, and
intimately connected by their reference to a common end, there is no
reason why they may not be considered in this light; and there is great
reason why they should be so considered, since otherwise, on many
occasions, we shall not do justice to the argument itself.

To return then to the text (which implies the existence and use of
such a system) and to conclude with it. _The spirit of prophecy is the
testimony of Jesus._ This angelic information presents, at first sight,
an idea stupendous indeed, but, on such a subject, suitable enough to
our expectations. It offers no violence to the natural sense of the
human mind; but, on the contrary, hath every thing in it to engage our
belief and veneration.

Such is the _idea_ of Prophecy, contemplated in itself. What
_conclusions_ (of importance, as we suppose, to the right apprehension
and further vindication of prophecy) may be drawn from that idea, will
be next considered.




SERMON III.

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TRUE IDEA OF PROPHECY.

REV. xix. 10.

_The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy._


We have seen how precarious all our reasonings on divine prophecy must
be, when built on no better grounds than those of human fancy and
conjecture. The text supplies us with a principle, as _we_ believe, of
divine authority; as _all_ must confess, of scriptural authority; that
is, of the same authority as that on which prophecy itself stands.

This principle has been explained at large. It affirms that _Jesus_,
whose person and character and history are sufficiently known from the
books of scripture, _is the end and object of the prophetic system_,
contained in those books.

We are now at liberty to reason from this principle. Whatever
conclusions are fairly drawn from it, must to the believer appear,
as certain truths; must to the unbeliever appear, as very proper
illustrations of that principle.

In general, if difficulties can be removed by pursuing and applying
scriptural principles, they are fairly removed: and the removal
of every such difficulty, on these grounds, must be a presumption
in favour of that system, whether we call it of _Prophecy_, or
_Revelation_, which is thus found to carry its own vindication with it.

From the principle of the text may, I think, be deduced, among others,
the following conclusions; all of them tending to clear the subject
of prophecy, and to obviate some or other of those objections, which
prejudiced or hasty reasoners have been disposed to make to it.

I. My first conclusion is, “That, on the idea of such a scheme of
prophecy, as the text supposes, a considerable degree of obscurity
may be reasonably expected to attend the _delivery_ of the divine
predictions.”

There are general reasons which shew that prophecy, as such, will
most probably be thus delivered. For instance, it has been observed,
that, as the completion of prophecy is left, for the most part, to
the instrumentality of free agents, if the circumstances of the event
were predicted with the utmost precision, either human liberty must be
restrained; or human obstinacy _might_ be tempted to form, the absurd
indeed, but criminal purpose, of counteracting the prediction. On the
contrary, by throwing some part of the predicted event into shade, the
moral faculties of the agent have their proper play, and the guilt of
an intended opposition to the will of heaven is avoided. This reason
seems to have its weight: and many others might still be mentioned.
But I argue, at present, from the _particular_ principle, under
consideration.

An immense scheme of prophecy was ultimately designed to bear testimony
to the person and fortunes of Jesus. But Jesus was not himself to come,
till what is called the _last age_ of the world, nor all the purposes
of his coming to be fully accomplished, till the _end_ of that age.

Now, whatever reasons might make it fit, in the view of infinite
wisdom, to defer the execution of this scheme to so distant a period,
may probably be conceived to make it fit, that the _delivery_ of it
should be proportionably dark and obscure. A certain degree of light,
we will say, was to be communicated from the date of the prophecy: but
it is very conceivable that the ages nearer the completion of it, might
be more immediately concerned in the event predicted; and that, till
such time approached, it might be convenient to leave the prediction in
a good degree of obscurity.

The fact answers to this presumption. Prophecies of very remote events,
remote, I mean, from the date of the prediction, are universally the
most obscure. As the season advanced for their accomplishment, they
are rendered more clear: either fresh prophecies are given, to point
out the time, and other circumstances, more determinately; or the
completion of some prophecies affords new light for the interpretation
of others, that are unfulfilled. Yet neither are we to conceive that
those _fresh prophecies_, or this _new light_ removes all obscurity:
enough is still left to prevent or disappoint the efforts of
presumption; and only so much additional clearness is bestowed on the
prophecy, as the revealer saw fit to indulge to those who lived nearer
the time of its completion.

But this is not all: By looking into that plan of providence, which
respects Jesus, and the ends to be accomplished by him, as it is
drawn out in the sacred writings, we find a _distinct_ reason for the
obscurity of the prophecies, relative to that subject.

We there find it to have been in the order of the divine councils,
that, between the first dawnings of revelation and the fuller light
of the Gospel, an intermediate and very singular œconomy, yet still
preparatory to that of Jesus, should be instituted. This œconomy (for
reasons, which it is not to our present purpose to deduce, and for
some, no doubt, which we should in vain attempt to discover) was to
continue for many ages, and _while_ it continued, was to be had in
honour among that people, for whom it was more immediately designed.
But now the genius of those two dispensations, the Jewish, I mean, and
the Christian, being wholly different; the one, carnal, and enforced
by temporal sanctions only, the other, spiritual, and established on
better promises, the prophets, who lived under the former of these
dispensations (and the greater part of those, who prophesied of Jesus,
lived under it) were of course so to predict the future œconomy, as not
to disgrace the present. They were to respect the _Law_, even while
they announced the _Gospel_, which was, in due time, to supersede
it[26].

So much, we will say, was to be discovered as might erect the
thoughts of men towards some better scheme of things, hereafter to be
introduced; certainly so much, as might sufficiently evince the divine
intention in that scheme, when it should actually take place; but not
enough to indispose them towards that state of discipline, under the
yoke of which they were then held. From this double purpose, would
clearly result that character, in the prophecies concerning the new
dispensation, which we find impressed upon them; and which St. Peter
well describes, when he speaks of them, as dispensing a light indeed,
but _a light shining in a dark place_.

Upon the whole, the delivery of prophecy seems well suited to that
dispensation which it was given to attest. If the object in view had
been one single event, to be accomplished all at once, it might perhaps
be expected that the prophecies concerning it would have been clear
and precise. But, if the scheme of Christianity be what the scriptures
represent it to be, a scheme, commencing from the foundation of the
world, and unfolding itself by just degrees through a long succession
of ages, and to be fully accomplished only at the consummation of all
things, _prophecy_, which was given to attend on that scheme, and to
furnish a suitable attestation to it, must needs be supposed to adapt
itself to the nature of the dispensation; that is, to have different
degrees of clearness or obscurity according to its place in the general
system; and not to disclose more of it, or in clearer terms, at any one
period, than might consist with the various ends of wisdom which were
to be served by the gradual opening of so vast and intricate a scene.

ANOTHER circumstance, of affinity with this, is apt to strike us, in
the contemplation of the scriptural prophecies. There is reason to
believe that more than one sense was purposely inclosed in some of
them; and we find, in fact, that the writers of the New Testament
give to many of the old prophecies an interpretation very different
and remote from that which may be reasonably thought the primary and
immediate view of the prophets themselves. This is what Divines call
the DOUBLE SENSE of prophecy: by which they mean an accomplishment of
it in more events than one; in the same system indeed; but at distant
intervals, and under different parts of that system.

Now, as suspicious as this circumstance may appear at first sight,
it will be found, on inquiry, to be exactly suited to that idea of
prophecy which the text gives us of it, as being, from the first, and
all along, intended to _bear Testimony to Jesus_. For from that idea I
conclude again,

II. “That prophecies of a _double sense_ may well be expected in such a
scheme.”

And where is the wonder that, if prophecy was given to attest the
coming of Jesus and the dispensation to be erected by him, it should
occasionally, in every stage of it, respect its main purpose; and,
though the immediate object be some other, it should never lose sight
of that, in which it was ultimately to find its repose and end?

It hath been before observed, That, between the earlier notices
concerning Jesus, and the advent of that great person, it seemed good
to infinite wisdom (I speak in terms, suited to the representation of
scripture) to institute the intermediate œconomy of the Jewish Law.
Among other provisions for the administration of this Law, _prophecy_
was one; and, upon its own pretensions, a necessary one; for the
government claims to be strictly _theocratical_; and the people, to
be governed by it, were to be made sensible, at every step, that it
was so. Therefore the interesting events in their civil history were
to be regarded by them, as coming within the cognisance, and lying
under the controul, of their divine governour: to which end, a race
of men were successively raised up among them, to give them warning
of those events, and, by this divine foresight of what was seen to be
accomplished in their history, to afford a clear conviction, that they
were, in fact, under that peculiar government.

Add to this, that the _Law_ itself, so wonderfully constructed, was
but a part, indeed the rudiments, of one great scheme; was given, not
for its own sake, but to make way for a still nobler and more generous
institution; was, in truth, a preparatory state of discipline, or
_pædagogy_, as St. Paul terms it, to bring the subjects of it, in due
time, to _Christ_[27].

Jesus then, the object of the earliest prophecies, was not overlooked
in this following dispensation; which was, indeed, instinct with
presages of that divine person. _It gave the shadow of good things to
come, but the body was of Christ_[28]. The _legal_ prophets, in like
manner, while they were immediately employed, and perhaps believed
themselves to be solely employed, in predicting the occurrences of the
Jewish state, were at the same time, preluding, as it were, to the
person and dispensation of Jesus; the holy Spirit, which inspired them,
bearing out their expression, and enlarging their conceptions, beyond
the worth and size of those objects, which came directly in their view.

There is nothing in this account of _prophecy_, but what falls in
with our best ideas of the divine wisdom; intently prosecuting one
entire scheme; and directing the constituent parts of it to the general
purpose of his providence, at the same time that _each_ serves to
accomplish its own.

This _double_, or _secondary sense_ of prophecy was so far from giving
offence to Lord Bacon, that he speaks of it with admiration, as one
striking argument of its Divinity. _In sorting the prophecies of
scripture with their events_ (a work much desired by this wise author,
and intended by this Lecture) _we must allow_, says he, _for that
latitude which is agreeable and familiar unto divine prophecies, being
of the nature of the author, with whom a thousand years are but as one
day; and therefore they are not fulfilled punctually at once, but have
springing and germinant accomplishment throughout many ages, though the
height or fulness of them may refer to some one age_[29].

But, that we may not mistake, or pervert, this fine observation of our
great philosopher, it may be proper to take notice, that the reason of
it holds in such prophecies only as respect the several successive
parts of one system; which, being intimately connected together,
may be supposed to come within the view and contemplation of the
same prophecy: whereas it would be endless, and one sees not on what
grounds of reason we are authorized, to look out for the accomplishment
of prophecy in any casual unrelated events of general history. The
Scripture speaks of prophecy, as respecting Jesus, that is, as being
one connected scheme of Providence, of which the Jewish dispensation
makes a part: so that here we are led to expect that _springing and
germinant accomplishment_, which is mentioned. But had the Jewish
Law been complete in itself, and totally unrelated to the Christian,
the general principle—_that a thousand years are with God but as
one day_—would no more justify us in extending a Jewish prophecy
to Christian events, because perhaps it was eminently fulfilled in
them, than it would justify us in extending it to any other signally
corresponding events whatsoever. It is only when the prophet hath one
uniform connected design before him, that we are authorised to use this
latitude of interpretation. For then the prophetic spirit naturally
runs along the several parts of _such_ design, and unites the remotest
events with the nearest: the style of the prophet, in the mean time,
so adapting itself to this double prospect, as to paint the near and
subordinate event in terms that _emphatically_ represent the distant
and more considerable.

So that, with this explanation, nothing can be more just or
philosophical, than the idea which Lord Bacon suggests of divine
prophecy.

The great scheme of Redemption, we are now considering, being the only
scheme in the plan of Providence, which, as far as we know, hath been
prepared and dignified by a continued system of prophecy, at least this
being the only scheme to which we have seen a prophetic system applied,
men do not so readily apprehend the doctrine of _double senses_ in
prophecy, as they would do, if they saw it exemplified in other cases.
But what the history of mankind does not supply, we may represent to
ourselves by many obvious suppositions; which cannot justify, indeed,
such a scheme of things, but may facilitate the conception of it.

Suppose, for instance, that it had been the purpose of the Deity (as it
unquestionably was) to erect the FREE GOVERNMENT of ancient Rome; and
that, from the time of Æneas’ landing in Italy, he had given prophetic
intimations of this purpose. Suppose, further, that he had seen fit,
for the better discipline of his favoured people, to place them, for a
season, under the _yoke_ of the Regal government; and that, during that
state of things, he had instructed his prophets to foretell the wars
and other occurrences which should distinguish that period of their
history.—Here would be a case somewhat similar to that of the Jews
under their theocratic regimen: not exactly indeed, because prophecy,
as we have seen, was essential to the Jewish polity, but had nothing
to do with the regal, or any other polity of the Romans. But allow for
this difference, and suppose that, for some reason or other, the spirit
of prophecy was indulged to this people, under their _kings_, as it
was to the Jews, under their _theocracy_; and that it was _primarily_
employed in the same way, that is, in predicting their various fortunes
under that regimen: Suppose, I say, all this, and would it surprize
us to find that their prophets, in dilating on this part of their
scheme, should, in a _secondary_ sense, predict the future and more
splendid part of it? That, having the whole equally presented to
their view, they should anticipate the coming glories of their _free_
state, even in a prophecy which directly concerned their _regal_, and
much humbler successes? That, in commenting on their petty victories
over the Sabins and Latins, they should drop some hints that pointed
at their African and Asiatic triumphs; or, in tracing the shadow of
freedom they enjoyed under the best of their kings, they should let
fall some strokes, that more expressly designed the substantial liberty
of their equal republic: the _end_, as we suppose, and completion of
that scheme, for the sake of which the prophetic power itself had been
communicated to them? Still more: supposing we had such prophecies now
in our hands, and that we found them applicable indeed in a general way
to the former parts of their history, but frequently more expressive
of events in the latter, should we doubt of their being prophecies in
a _double sense_, or should we think it strange that two successive
and dependent dispensations in the same connected scheme should be, at
once, the object of the same predictions? And lastly, to put an end to
these questions, could there seem to be equal reason for applying these
predictions to such events as might possibly correspond to them in some
_other_ history, the Græcian, for instance, as for applying them to
similar events in the _Roman_ history?

Let me just observe further, that, from what hath been said under these
two articles, we may clearly discern the difference between _Pagan
oracles_, and _Scriptural prophecies_. Both have been termed obscure
and ambiguous; and an invidious parallel hath been made, or insinuated,
between them[30]. The Pagan oracles were indeed _obscure_, sometimes
to a degree that no reasonable sense could be made of them: they were
also _ambiguous_, in the worst sense; I mean, so as to admit contrary
interpretations. The scriptural prophecies we own to be _obscure_,
to a certain degree: And we may call them, too, _ambiguous_; because
they contained two, consistent, indeed, but different meanings. But
here is the distinction, I would point out to you. The obscurity and
ambiguity of the Pagan oracles had no necessary, or reasonable cause
in the subject, on which they turned: the obscurity and ambiguity
of the scriptural prophecies have an evident reason in the system,
to which they belong. As the Pagan predictions had near and single
events for their object, the fate perhaps of some depending war, or
the success of some council, then in agitation, they might have been
clearly and precisely delivered; and in fact we find that such of the
Jewish predictions as foretold events of that sort and character,
were so delivered: But, the scriptural prophecies under consideration
respecting one immense scheme of Providence, it might be expedient
that the remoter parts should be obscurely revealed; as it was surely
natural that the connected parts of such a scheme should be shewn
together.

We see then what force there is in that question, which is asked with
so much confidence—“_Is it possible, that the same character can
be due to the Jewish prophecies, which the wise and virtuous in the
heathen world considered as an argument of fraud and falshood in the
Pythian prophecies[31]?_”

_First_, we say, the character is _not_ entirely the same in both:
and, _secondly_, that, so far as it _is_ the same, that character
is very becoming in the Jewish, but utterly absurd in the Pythian
prophecies. What was owing to fraud or ignorance in the Pagan Diviner,
is reasonably ascribed to the depth and height of that wisdom, which
informed the Jewish Prophet[32].

To proceed with our subject. It further appears,

III. On the grounds of the text, we now stand upon, “to be very
conceiveable and credible that the line of prophecy should run chiefly
in one family and people, as we are informed it did, and that the other
nations of the earth should be no further the _immediate_ objects of
it, than as they chanced to be connected with that people.”

Prophecy, in the ideas of scripture, was not ultimately given for the
private use of this or that nation, nor yet for the nobler and more
general purpose of proclaiming the superintending providence of the
Deity (an awful truth, which men might collect for themselves from
the established constitution of nature) but _simply_ to evidence the
truth of the Christian revelation. It was _therefore_ confined to one
nation, purposely set apart to preserve and attest the oracles of God;
and to exhibit, in their public records and whole history, the proofs
and credentials of an amazing dispensation, which God had decreed to
accomplish in Christ Jesus[33].

This conclusion, I say, seems naturally and fairly drawn from the great
principle, that _the spirit of prophecy was the testimony of Jesus_,
because the means appear to be well suited and proportioned to the
_end_. The _Testimony_ thought fit to be given, was not one or two
prophecies only, but a _scheme_ of prophecy, gradually prepared and
continued through a large tract of time. But how could such a scheme be
executed, or rather how could it clearly be seen that there was such a
scheme in view, if some _one_ people had not been made the repository,
and, in part, the instrument of the divine counsels, in regard to
Jesus; some _one_ people, I say, among whom we might trace the several
parts of such a scheme, and observe the dependance they had on each
other; that so the _idea_, of what we call a scheme, might be duly
impressed upon us?

For, had the notices concerning the Redeemer been dispersed
indifferently among _all_ nations, where had been that uncorrupt and
unsuspected testimony, that continuity of evidence, that unbroken chain
of prediction, all tending, by just degrees, to the same point, which
we now contemplate with wonder in the Jewish scriptures?

It is not then that the rest of the world was overlooked[34] in the
plan of God’s providence, but that he saw fit to employ the ministry of
_one_ people: This last, I say, and not the other, is the reason why
the divine communications concerning Christ were appropriated to the
Jews.

Yes, but “some one of the _greater_ nations had better been intrusted
with that charge.” This circumstance, I allow, might have struck a
superficial observer more: but could the integrity of the prophetic
scheme have been more discernible amidst the multiform and infinitely
involved transactions of a mighty people, than in the simpler story of
this small Jewish family; or would the hand or work of God, who loves
to manifest himself by weak instruments, have been more conspicuous in
that designation?

On the whole, I forget not, with what awful diffidence it becomes
us to reason on such subjects. But the _fact_ being, that _one_, in
preference to other nations, had the honour of conveying the prophetic
admonitions concerning Jesus, it may be allowable to inquire, with
modesty, into the reasons of that appointment, and the _end_ of
prophecy being clearly assigned in sacred scripture, such reasons will
not be hastily rejected, as obviously present themselves to an inquirer
from the _consideration_ of that end.

The benefits of prophecy, though conveyed by one nation, would finally
redound to all; and the more _effectually_, we have seen, for being
conveyed by one nation. May we not conclude then (having the _fact_,
as I said, to reason upon) that, to obtain such purpose, it was fit to
select _a peculiar people_? And, if thus much be acknowledged, it will
hardly be thought a question of much moment, though no answer could be
given to it, why the _Jews_ had that exclusive privilege conferred upon
them.

It is true, a great scheme of prophecy was once revealed to a Gentile
King[35]; but a King, connected with the Jews, and who had a Jewish
prophet for his interpreter. It is, besides, observable of that
prophetic scheme, that it laid open the future fortunes of four great
empires; but all of them instruments in the hand of God to carry on
his designs, on the Jewish people first, but ultimately, with regard
to Jesus. For it hath been remarked with equal truth and penetration,
that Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the four kingdoms was designed, as a
sort of _prophetic chronology_, to point out, by a series of successive
empires, the beginning and end of Christ’s spiritual Kingdom. So that
the reason, why those four empires only were distinguished by the
spirit of prophecy, was, not because they were greater than all others,
but simply because the course of their history led, in a regular and
direct succession, to the times and reign of Christ[36].

We see then, on the principle, _that prophecy was given for the sake
of Jesus only_, that no presumption lies against the truth of it, on
account of its respecting chiefly one people, how inconsiderable soever
in itself, or from its silence in regard to some of the largest and
most flourishing kingdoms that have appeared in the world.

IV. Lastly (for I now hasten to an end of this discourse) I infer from
the same principle, “That, if, even after a mature consideration of the
prophecies, and of the events, in which they are taken to be fulfilled,
there should, after all, be some cloud remaining on this subject, which
with all our wit or pains we cannot wholly remove, this state of things
would afford no objection to prophecy, because it is indeed no other
than we might reasonably expect.”

For, 1. If Jesus be the end of prophecy, the same reasons that made
it fit to deliver some predictions darkly, will further account to
us for some degree of obscurity in the application of them to their
corresponding events.

I say—will _account_ to us for such obscurity—for, whatever
those _reasons_ were, they could not have taken effect, but by the
intervention of such _means_, as must darken in some degree, the
application of a prophecy, even after the accomplishment of it; unless
we say, that an object can be seen as distinctly through a _veil_, as
without one. For instance: _figurative language_ is the chief of those
means, by which it pleased the inspirer to throw a shade on prophecies,
unfulfilled; but figurative language, from the nature of it, is not
so precise and clear, as _literal expression_, even when the event
prefigured has lent its aid to illustrate and explain that language.

If then it was _fit_ that some prophecies concerning Jesus should be
_delivered_ obscurely, it cannot be supposed that such prophecies,
when they come to be _applied_, will acquire a full and absolute
perspicuity[37].

2. If the dispensation of Jesus be the main subject of the prophecies,
then may some of them be still impenetrable to us, because the various
fortunes of that dispensation are not yet perfectly disclosed, and so
some of them may not hitherto have been fulfilled. But the completion
of a prophecy is that which gives the utmost degree of clearness, of
which it is capable.

3. But lastly and chiefly, if the end and use of prophecy be to attest
the truth of Christianity, then may we be sure that such attestation
will not carry with it the utmost degree of evidence. For Christianity
is plainly a state of discipline and probation: calculated to improve
our moral nature, by giving scope and exercise to our moral faculties.
So that, though the evidence for it be _real_ evidence, and on the
whole _sufficient_ evidence, yet neither can we expect it to be of that
sort which should compel our assent. Something must be left to quicken
our attention, to excite our industry, and to try the natural ingenuity
of the human mind.

Had the purpose of prophecy been to shew, merely, that a predicted
event was foreseen, then the end had been best answered by throwing all
possible evidence into the completion. But its concern being to shew
this to such only as should be disposed to admit a reasonable degree of
evidence, it was not necessary, or rather it was plainly not fit, that
the completion should be seen in that strong and irresistible light[38].

For all the reasons, now given, (and doubtless, for many more) it was
to be expected, that prophecy would not be one cloudless emanation of
light and glory. If it be clear enough to serve the ends, for which it
was designed; if through all its obscurities, we be able to trace the
hand and intention of its divine author; what more would we have? How
improvidently, indeed, do we ask more of that great Being, who, for the
sake of the _natural_ world, _clothes the heavens with blackness_ [Is.
1. 3.]; and in equal mercy to the _moral_ world, veils his nature and
providence _in thick clouds, and makes darkness his pavilion_ [Ps.
xviii. 11]?

TO THESE deductions from the text, more might be added. For I believe
it will be found that if the _end_ of prophecy, as here delivered, be
steddily kept in view and diligently pursued, it will go a great way
towards leading us to a prosperous issue in most of those inquiries,
which are thought to perplex this subject. But I mean to reason from
it no farther than just to shew, in the way of specimen, the method
in which it becomes us to speculate on the prophetic system. We are
not to imagine principles, at pleasure, and then apply them to that
system. But we are, first, to find out what the principles are, on
which prophecy is founded, and by which it claims to be tried; and then
to see whether they will _hold_, that is, whether they will aptly and
properly apply to the particulars, of which it is compounded. If they
will, the system itself is thus far clearly justified. All that remains
is to compare the prophecies with their corresponding events, in order
to assure ourselves that there is real evidence of their completion.

The _use_ of this method has been shewn in FOUR capital instances.
It is objected to the scriptural prophecies, _that they are
obscure_—_that they abound in double senses_—_that they were
delivered to one people_—_that, after all, there is sometimes
difficulty in making out the completion_—all of them, it is said, very
suspicious circumstances; and which rather indicate a scheme of human
contrivance, than of divine inspiration.

To these objections it is replied, that, from the very idea which the
scriptures themselves give of prophecy, these circumstances must needs
be found in it; and further still, that these circumstances, when
fairly considered, do honour to that idea: for that the obscurity,
complained of, results, _from the immensity of the scheme_—the double
senses, _from the intimate connection of its parts_—the partial
and confined delivery, _from the wisdom and necessity of selecting
a peculiar people to be the vehicle and repository of the sacred_
oracles—And lastly, the incomplete evidence, _from the nature of the
subject, and from the moral genius of that dispensation, to which the
scheme of prophecy itself belongs_.

In conclusion, it is now seen to what purpose these preliminary
discourses serve, and in what method they have been conducted.

The FIRST, shewed the vanity and folly of reasoning on the subject
of scriptural prophecy from our preconceived fancies and arbitrary
assumptions. The SECOND, shewed the only true way of reasoning upon it
to be from scriptural principles, and then opened and explained _one_
such principle. In this LAST, I have shewn that, by prosecuting this
way of reasoning from the principle assigned, some of the more specious
objections to the scriptural prophecies are easily obviated.

Taken together, these three discourses serve to illustrate the
_general_ idea of prophecy, considered as one great scheme of
_testimony_ to the religion of Jesus; and consequently open a way for
the fair and equitable consideration of _particular_ prophecies, the
more immediate subject of this Lecture.




SERMON IV.

THE GENERAL ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY.

JOHN xiii. 19.

_Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come to pass, ye may
believe, that I am He._


It hath been concluded (not on the slight grounds of hypothesis, but on
the express authority of scripture,) that prophecy was given TO ATTEST
THE MISSION OF JESUS: to afford a reasonable evidence, that the scheme
of redemption, of which he was the great instrument and minister, was,
in truth, of divine appointment; and was carried on under the immediate
cognizance and direction of the Supreme Being, whose prerogative it is
to see through all time, and to _call those things, which be not, as
though they were_[39].

Our next inquiry will be, how the prophetic scriptures _serve_ to
that end, and what that _evidence_ is (I mean, taking for granted,
not the truth of the prophetic scheme itself, but the truth of the
_representation_, given of it in scripture) which is thus administered
to us by the light of prophecy.

I. The text refers to a particular prophecy of our Lord, concerning the
treachery of Judas; of which, says he to his disciples, _I now tell
you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that
I am He_: that is, “I add this, to the other predictions concerning
myself; that, when ye see it fulfilled, as it soon will be, ye may be
the more convinced of my being the person, I assume to be, the _Messias
foretold_.”

The information, here given, was perhaps intended by our Lord to
serve a particular purpose, To prevent, we will say, the offence,
which the disciples might have taken at the circumstance of his being
betrayed by one of them, if they had not, previously, been admonished
of it. But the reason of the thing shews, that the _use_, which the
disciples are directed to make of this prophecy, was the _general_ use
of the prophecies concerning Jesus. The completion was to verify the
prediction, in all cases; and to convince the world, That HE was the
Messiah, in whom such things should be seen to be accomplished, as had
been expressly foretold[40].

Indeed prophecies, unaccomplished, may have their use; that is, they
may serve to raise a general expectation of a predicted _event_ in
the minds of those, who, for other reasons, regard the _person_
predicting it, in the light of a true prophet. And such might be one,
a _subordinate_, use of the prophecies concerning Jesus: but they
could not be applied to the _proof_ of his pretensions, till they were
seen to be fulfilled. Nor can they be so applied even then, unless the
things predicted be, confessedly, beyond the reach of human foresight.

Under these conditions, the argument is clear and easy, and will lie
thus.—“A great variety of distant, or, at least, future events,
inscrutable to human sagacity, and respecting one person (whom we will
call, Messiah) have been by different men, and at different times,
predicted. These events have accordingly come to pass, in the history
and fortunes of one person; in such sort, that each is seen to be, in
a proper sense, fulfilled in him, and all together in no other person
whatsoever: Therefore the prediction of these events was divinely
inspired: or (which comes to the same thing) therefore the person,
claiming under these predictions to be the Messiah, or person foretold,
hath his claims confirmed and justified by the highest authority, that
of God himself.”

Such is the argument from prophecy[41]: and on this foundation, Jesus
assumes to be the MESSIAH; and his religion, to be DIVINE.

II. Let us now see, what the amount of that _evidence_ is, which
results from this kind of proof.

Careless talkers may say, and sometimes think, “that prophecy is but
an art of conjecturing shrewdly; that the sagacity of one man is seen
to be vastly superior to that of another; that, in some men, the
natural faculty may be so improved by experience, as to look like
_divination_; and that no precise bounds can be set to its powers.”
Light or sceptical minds may, I say, amuse themselves with such
fancies: but serious men will readily acknowledge, That many future
events, especially, if _remote_, or _extraordinary_[42], or described
with some degree of _particularity_, are not within the ability of the
human mind to predict. And, to cut off all occasion of cavil, let it be
owned, that the argument under consideration is, or ought to be, drawn
from the completion of prophecies, so qualified.

To evade the force, which this argument apparently carries with it,
it must then be said, That the completion of any particular prophecy,
alleged, was fortuitous, or, what we call, a _lucky hit_.

“Coincidencies of this sort, we may be told, are very frequent. In
the ceaseless revolution of human affairs, some event or other will
be turning up, which may give a countenance to the wildest and
most hazardous conjecture. Hence it is, that every groundless fear,
every dream, almost, has the appearance of being realized by some
corresponding accident; which will not be long in occurring to those,
who are upon the watch to make such discoveries. Upon these grounds,
the superstition of _omens_ hath, at all times, been able to sustain
itself; and to acquire a degree of credit, even with wise men. We
see, then, that _chance_, in a good degree, supplies the place of
inspiration: and that He, who sets up for a Prophet, is likely to
drive a safe, as well as gainful trade; especially, if he have but the
discretion not to deal too freely in precise descriptions of _times_,
and _persons_[43]: a consideration, of great moment to the men of this
craft[44]; and which hath not been overlooked by those, whom we account
_true_ prophets.”

Such libertine reflections, as these, thrown out with an air of
negligent ridicule, have too often the effect intended by them. At
the same time, they disgust sober men, and are thought too light
and trivial to deserve a confutation. But, because I take these
suggestions, with whatever levity, or disingenuity, they may be made,
to contain the whole, or at least, the chief strength of the infidel
cause, on this subject, I shall not decline to give them a very serious
answer.

IT IS TRUE, no doubt, what is here alledged, That the conjectures
of fanciful or designing men, whether grounded on casual signs, or
delivered in the direct way of prophecy, have been frequently verified
in the events: that is, such events have actually come to pass, in the
sense put upon the _sign_, when it was observed, and in the literal
sense of the _prophecy_, as delivered. History and common life, it is
agreed, abound in such instances[45]: and I shall even make no scruple
to produce _one_ of each sort; as much, at least, to the purpose
of these objectors, as any of those, which they have produced for
themselves.

Nothing is more famous in the annals of ancient Rome, than the story
of Romulus, and his TWELVE VULTURES; an _omen_ this, on which the
auspicious name of the rising city, and the fortune of its founder,
were, at once, established[46]. What further construction was
then put on this prodigy, doth not appear: but, as the science of
augury advanced in succeeding times, a very momentous and striking
prophecy was grounded upon it. For we have it affirmed[47], on the
high authority of M. T. VARRO, that Vettius Valens, an augur of
distinguished name in those days, took occasion from this circumstance
(and in the hearing of Varro himself) to fix the duration of the Roman
empire. The TWELVE VULTURES, he said, which appeared to Romulus,
_portended_, that the sovereignty of that state and city, whose
foundations he was then laying, should continue for the space of TWELVE
HUNDRED YEARS. It is of no moment to inquire, on what principles of his
art the learned augur proceeded, in this calculation. The TRUTH is,
that the event corresponded, in a surprising manner, to the conjecture;
and that the _majesty_ of the Western empire (of which Rome was the
capital) _did_, indeed, expire under the merciless hands of the Goths,
about the time limited by this augural prophet.

It should further, be observed that this prediction was of such
credit and notoriety, as to take the attention of the later Romans
themselves[48], who looked with anxiety for the accomplishment of it:
and that it was delivered by Valens, at least _five hundred years_
before the event; when there was not the least appearance, that this
catastrophe would befall, what was called, the ETERNAL CITY, within
that period.

THIS is an instance of divination from _augury_. The OTHER, I am
about to give, is a _prophecy_, in full form; respecting a still more
important subject, and equally accomplished in the event. A poet, in
the ideas of paganism, was a prophet, too. And Seneca[49] hath left us,
in proof of the inspiration to which, in his double capacity, he might
pretend, the following oracle:

              ——venient annis
    Secula seris, quibus Oceanus
    Vincula rerum laxet, et ingens
    Pateat tellus, Tiphysque novos
    Detegat orbes; nec sit terris
    Ultima Thule.

This prediction was made in the reign of Nero; and, for more than
_fourteen hundred_ years, might only pass for one of those sallies of
imagination, in which poetry so much delights. But, when, at length,
in the close of the _fifteenth_ century, the discoveries of Columbus
had realized this vision: when that enterprizing navigator had forced
the barriers of the vast Atlantic ocean; had _loosened_, what the poet
calls, _the chain of things_; and in these _later ages_[50], as was
expressly signified, had set at liberty an immense continent, shut up
before in surrounding seas from the commerce and acquaintance of our
world; when this event, I say, so important and so unexpected, came to
pass, it might almost surprize one into the belief, that the prediction
was something more than a poetical fancy; and that Heaven had, indeed,
revealed to _one_ favoured Spaniard, what it had decreed, in due time,
to accomplish under the auspices of _another_[51].

THESE two instances of casual conjecture, converted by time and
accident into prophecies, I shall take for granted, are as remarkable,
as any other that can be alledged. Cicero, in his first book of
_Divination_, where he laboured to assert the reality of such a power
in the pagan world, was able to produce nothing equal, or comparable
to them. We have the fullest evidence, that these two predictions
were delivered by the persons, to whom they are ascribed; and in the
time, in which they are said to have been delivered, that is, many
hundred years before the event. They, both of them, respect events
of the greatest dignity and importance: one of them, the downfal of
the _mightiest empire_, that hath hitherto subsisted on the face
of the earth; and the other, the discovery of a _new world_. Both,
express the _time_, when these extraordinary events were to happen:
the _latter_, by a general description, indeed, yet not more general,
than is frequent in the scriptural prophets; but the _former_, in the
most precise and limited terms. In a word, both these predictions are
authentic, important, circumstantial: they foretell events, which no
human sagacity could have foreseen; and they have been strictly and
properly fulfilled.

Now, if such coincidencies, as these, do not infer divine inspiration;
if, notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary, it must still be
allowed (as it will, on all sides) that they were simply _fortuitous_,
or what we call the effects of hazard and pure chance, by what
characters shall we distinguish genuine, from pretended, prophecies; or
in what way shall it be discovered, that the scriptural prophets spake
by the spirit of _God_, when these pagan diviners could thus prophecy,
by their _own_ spirit?

To this objection, put with all the force which I am able to give to
it, I reply directly, That the distinction, so importunately demanded,
may very easily and clearly be assigned.

If _one or two_ such prophecies, _only_, had occurred in our
scriptures; if even _several_ such had occurred in the whole extent
of those writings, and in the large compass of time they take up,
without descending to a greater detail than is expressed in these pagan
oracles; nay, if _a greater number still_ of supposed predictions, thus
generally delivered in the sacred writings, had been applicable only to
single independent events, dispersed indifferently through the several
ages of the world: In all these cases, I should freely admit, that the
argument from prophecy was very precarious and unsatisfactory: I could
even suppose, with the deriders of this argument, that so many, and
such prophecies, so directed, might not improbably be accounted for,
from some odd conjuncture of circumstances; and that the accomplishment
of them did by no means infer a certainty of inspiration.

But, if now, on the other hand, it be indisputable, That a vast variety
of predictions are to be found in the scriptures of the Old and New
Testament; That a great part of these predictions are delivered with
the utmost degree of minuteness and particularity; and, lastly, That
_all_ of them, whether general or particular, respect one common
subject, and profess to have, or to expect, their completion in one
connected scheme of things, and, upon the matter, in one single person:
On this latter supposition, I must still think, that there is great
reason to admit the divine inspiration of such prophecies, when seen to
be fulfilled.

To convert this supposition into a _proof_, is not within the scope
and purpose of this Lecture. The work hath been undertaken and
discharged by many others: or, it may be sufficient, in so clear a
point, to refer you directly to the Scriptures themselves; which no
man can read without seeing, that the prophecies, contained in them,
are extremely numerous—that many of these prophecies are minutely
circumstantial—and that one person, whoever he be, is the principal
object of them all. My concern, at present, is only to shew, that,
if the supposition itself be well founded, the _inference_, just now
mentioned, is rightly made.

1. First, then, if the prophecies in the Old and New Testament be very
numerous, and if those prophecies, so many of them, I mean, as are
alledged in this controversy with unbelievers, have had a reasonable
completion (and I have a right to make this last supposition, when
the question is concerning the _account_ to be given of such a fact):
If, I say, we argue from these two assumptions, it must appear highly
credible and probable, that so numerous prophecies, so fulfilled,
had not their origin from human conjecture, nor their accomplishment
from what we call, _Chance_. For mere conjecture is not usually so
happy; nor chance, so constant[52]. Further still; if the scriptural
prophecies have been completed in numerous instances, and if in _no_
instance whatsoever can it be clearly shewn that they have failed in
the event, the presumption is still stronger, that such coincidence
could not be fortuitous; and a material difference between scriptural
prophecy, and pagan divination is, at the same time, pointed out. For,
that, in the multitude of pretended oracles in the days of paganism,
some few only should come to pass, while the generality of them fell to
the ground, may well be the sport of _fortune_[53]. But, that very many
prophecies, recorded in our scriptures, have had an evident completion,
when not _one_ of all those, there recorded, can be convicted of
imposture, must surely be the work of _design_.

The argument cannot be denied to have real weight, though the
expression of _all_ the prophecies were allowed to be _general_. But
this is, by no means, the case. It is further assumed, and is evident
to all that have read the Scriptures, that a great number of them are
delivered with the utmost degree of minuteness and particularity. And,
from this assumption, I infer,

2. Secondly, that the accomplishment of prophecies, so circumstantially
defined, can still less be imputed to mere chance.

Without doubt, if all the prophecies concerning the Messiah had been
penned in the style of the first—_that the seed of the woman should
bruise the serpent’s head_—though even then there might be reason
for applying them, exclusively, to the person of Christ, yet, the
evidence, that they were intended to be so applied, would have been
much obscured by the mode of expression; the wide cover of which might
seem to afford room for other applications. But when, to this general
prophecy, the theme of all succeeding ones, it is further added, That
this seed of the woman, should be the seed of Abraham; of the tribe of
Juda; of the family of David; that he should be born at Bethlehem; that
he should appear in the world at a time, limited by certain events,
and even precisely determined to a certain period:—when, after a
particular description of his life and office, it is said of him, that
he should be betrayed by an intimate friend; and sold for a price,
exactly specified; that he should suffer a particular kind of death;
should have his hands and feet pierced; should have vinegar given him
to drink; and should be buried in the sepulchre of a rich man—with
innumerable other particularities of the like nature[54]—When all
this, I say, is considered; the improbability, that these _specific_
characters should meet in the same person by _chance_, is so great,
that a reasonable man will scarce venture on so hazardous a position.

3. Still this is not all. Were we at liberty to apply even _numerous,
and circumstantial_ prophecies, to _any_ person, indifferently, whom
they might suit, and to _any_ events indiscriminately, to which they
might correspond, sought out at large in the history of mankind, the
force of the argument for _design_ in such prophecies, might in good
measure be eluded. But, when we reflect on what, in part, hath appeared
under the last article, that all the scriptural predictions profess to
respect one certain scheme of things; run in the line of one people;
and point ultimately at one person, whose country, and family, and age,
and birth-place are exactly defined; the application of them is so
limited and restrained, that, if they suit at all, there is scarce a
possibility of excluding actual foresight, and intention.

LET ME, further, observe, that, as, upon this idea of a confined,
connected, and dependent scheme, in the prophecies, the detection of
imposture, if there be any, is much facilitated; so, on the other hand,
if the prophecies can be fairly applied in this way, not only the
presumption, that they were given to be so applied, is much increased,
but a clearer insight into the scope and meaning of them, is obtained.
For, in a system of prophecy, directed to one and the same general
end, preceding prophecies prepare the way for interpreting those that
follow, and every succeeding prophecy reflects some light on those that
went before. Thus, the general evidence, arising from this species of
argument, is, in all ways, augmented; while we see, that less room is
left to chance in verifying the more clear and direct prophecies, and
that fresh light is let in upon such as are more ambiguous or obscure.

It is said, that many passages in the prophets are applied to Jesus, on
very slight grounds. This would be true, if the prophetic scriptures,
like the pagan oracles, had no determinate scheme in view, and had,
for their object, only detached and unconnected events. But, on this
scriptural principle, that one common purpose is in the contemplation
of that divine spirit, which dictated all those writings, That is
_expressed_, which is barely intimated; and every applicable prophecy
is _rightly_ applied: whence it is, that even secondary prophecies
have, in the system of revelation, all the light and force of the
primary; as, in a former discourse, hath been observed.

This assertion, I know, may startle such persons, as have not attended
to the genius of the prophetic writings, or to that general harmony of
design and destination, which makes their distinctive character: but it
may be rendered familiar to us by reflecting on the _manner_, in which
we interpret other writings, somewhat similar to these.

It is generally supposed, and on good grounds, that Virgil wrote his
Æneid with the view of doing honour to the person and government of
Augustus. But, the subject of his work being taken from a former age,
this was either to be done, by introducing his encomiums under the
form of _prophecies_, or by conveying them indirectly in allusive
descriptions and, what we call, _secondary_ applications. The poet
hath employed both these methods, with success. The purpose of his
_predictions_ is clear; for in them the emperor is expressly named: and
the ablest critics make no scruple of applying to Augustus all those
passages in this poem, which, however they may respect, immediately,
other persons, are yet clearly seen to be _applicable_ to Him.

We have another instance of the same sort, at home. Our Spenser
wrote his famous poem, to illustrate the virtues and reign of Queen
Elizabeth. This we know from himself. Though his scene, therefore,
be laid in _Faery Land_, yet, whenever we find his fictions agreeing
to the history of that princess, or the characters of his knights
expressive of those virtues, which distinguished the great persons of
her court, we make no doubt of applying them in that way, or of the
poet’s intending that they should be so applied. These applications
would not be equally justifiable in _other_ works of fancy, written in
that time; but the knowledge, we have of the author’s general purpose
in writing, makes them reasonable in _this_.

It may appear from these examples[55], that, whenever a general
scheme is known to be pursued by a writer, whose real or assumed
character gives him a right to deal in secondary senses and prophetic
anticipations, that scheme becomes the true key, in the hands of his
reader, for unlocking the meaning of particular parts; of many parts,
which would otherwise not be seen clearly and distinctly to refer to
such scheme. The observation applies to the inspired writers, in all
its force. We understand, that they had one common and predominant
scheme in view, which was _to bear testimony to Jesus_. Their writings
are, then, to be interpreted in conformity to that scheme. Not only the
more direct prophecies require this interpretation; but, if we will
judge in this, as we do in other similar instances, whatever passages
occur in those writings, which bear an apt and easy resemblance to
the history of Jesus, may, or rather _must_, in all reasonable
construction, be applied to him.

Whence we see (to mention it by the way) that, if no prophecy in the
Old Testament had applied to Christ directly in its _primary_ sense,
Christianity might, yet, support itself on the evidence of prophecy.
For the evidence, arising from a _secondary_ sense of prophecies, is
_real_ evidence; and was certainly admitted, as such, by that great
man[56], whose mistakes on this subject have afforded the occasion of
so much vain triumph to infidelity.

Fancy, no doubt, may grow wanton in this sort of applications. It may
find, in the prophet or poet, what was never designed by either: but,
in the circumstances supposed, the severest reader will not deny, that
_much_ was probably designed by both. It is impossible to lay down
general rules, that shall prevent all abuse in the interpretation of
such writings. But good sense will easily see, in particular cases,
where this liberty of interpreting is, in _fact_, abused.

It is obvious to remark, that this use of prophecy doth not commence,
till the corresponding facts can be produced; that is, till the
prophecies are seen to be fulfilled. But this circumstance is no
discredit to the prophetic system; which pretends not to give immediate
conviction, but to lay in, beforehand, the _means_ of conviction
to such as shall be in a condition to compare, in due time, the
prediction with the event. Till then, prophecy serves only to raise
a general expectation of the event predicted; that is, it serves to
make men attentive and inquisitive, and to prepare them for that full
conviction, which it finally hath in view. And this service, the
prophecies of the Old Testament actually did the Jews, who were led by
them to expect the Messiah, when he, in fact, appeared among them. And,
had they pursued this reasonable method of interpreting the prophecies,
not by their prejudices, but by corresponding events, they must have
been further led to acknowledge his mission, as being evidently
attested by predictions, so fulfilled. But their capital mistake lay in
supposing, that their prophecies were sufficiently clear, without the
help of any comment from succeeding events; and thus, what they _could
not_ see beforehand, they _would not_ acknowledge, when these events
came to pass.

It follows from what hath been said, that the obscurity of the Jewish
prophecies concludes nothing against the _use_ of those writings, or
against the _application_ of them, which Christians now make. Their
_declared_ use is posterior to the facts they adumbrate; whence the
intervening obscurity of those writings is no just ground of complaint:
and the _application_ of them to Jesus, now that history hath taught us
to understand them better, is made on principles to which no sober man
can object.

On the whole, the general evidence for the truth of Christianity, as
resulting from the scriptural prophecies, though possibly not _that_
which some may wish or expect, is yet apparently very considerable.
_Some_ coincidencies might fall out, by accident; and _more_, might
be imagined. But when _so many_, and _such_ prophecies are brought
together, and compared with their corresponding events, it becomes
ridiculous (because the effect is, in no degree, proportioned to the
cause) to say of such coincidencies, that they are the creatures of
_fancy_ or could have been the work of _chance_.

The text supplies the only just account of such a phænomenon: and the
spirit of God, methinks, calls aloud to us, in the language of his
Son—_These things have I told you before they come, that when they
come to pass, ye may believe, that I am HE._




SERMON V.

PROPHECIES CONCERNING CHRIST’S FIRST COMING.

ISAIAH xlii. 9.

_Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I
declare: before they spring forth, I tell you of them._


The preceding discourses were designed, to open the _general idea_ of
prophecy; and to enforce the _general argument_ from it, in proof of
our holy Religion.

The way being thus far cleared, we now advance a step farther, and take
a nearer view of THE PROPHECIES THEMSELVES.

These prophecies may be considered under _two_ heads. They either
respect, _the person and character and office of the Messiah_; or, _the
fate and fortunes of that kingdom_, which he came to establish in the
world.

Divines call the _former_ of these, Prophecies of his FIRST COMING:
and the _other_, Prophecies of his SECOND. Only, it may be proper to
observe, That the _second_ advent of the Messiah is not, like the
_first_, confined to one single and precise period, but is gradual and
successive. This distinction is founded in the reason of the thing. He
could only come, _in person_, at one limited time. He comes, _in his
power and his providence_, through all ages of the church. His _first_
coming was then over, when he expired on the cross. His _second_,
commenced with his resurrection, and will continue to the end of the
world. So that this _last_ coming of Jesus is to be understood of his
_spiritual kingdom_; which is not one act of sovereignty, exerted at
once; but a state or constitution of government, subsisting through a
long tract of time, unfolding itself by just degrees, and _coming_,
as oft, as the conductor of it thinks fit to interpose by any signal
acts of his administration. And in this sense, we are directed to pray,
_that his kingdom_, though long since set up, _may come_; that is, may
advance through all its stages, till it arrive at that full state of
glory, in which it shall shine out in _the great day_, as it is called,
the day of judgment.

It will be seen, as we advance in the present inquiry, to what use this
distinction serves.

The _former_ set of prophecies are presumed to have had their
completion, in the history of _Jesus_; The _latter_ set, have had, or
are to find, their accomplishment, in the history of his _Religion_;
And of THESE only, it is the purpose of this Lecture to speak.

But, though the prophecies of Christ’s _first_ coming (so largely and
accurately considered by many great writers) be not the immediate
subject of our inquiry, yet they must not be wholly overlooked by us.
It will contribute very much to rectify and enlarge our ideas of the
divine conduct, in this whole dispensation of prophecy, and to make way
for that conviction, which the prophecies of Christ’s _second_ coming
were intended to give, if we stop a while to contemplate the _method
and œconomy_ of that prophetic system, by which the _first_ advent of
the Messiah was announced and prepared.

It is assumed, as a first principle on this subject, _That Jesus was
the ultimate end and object of all the prophecies_[57]: which beginning
from the foundation of the world[58], were, afterwards, occasionally
delivered through many ages; till at length this great purpose was
prosecuted more intently, by a continued and closely-compacted chain of
prophecy; as we see, first, in the patriarchal history, but, chiefly,
in the history of the Jewish state. For, when this people were selected
from the other nations, to answer many wise ends of providence, it
pleased God to institute a form of government for them, which could not
subsist without his frequent interposition; manifested in such a way
as might convince them, that they were under the actual and immediate
conduct of their divine sovereign. Hence, it became a part of this
singular œconomy, to be administered in the way of _Prophecy_; by which
it would be seen that the hand of God was upon them in all their more
important concerns.

Upon this basis of an _extraordinary providence_, the Jewish government
stood: and we are now to see in what _manner_ the prophetic spirit, so
essential to that polity, was employed.

1. First, we may observe, that, by means of this provision for their
civil regimen, an apt and commodious way was opened for carrying on
the divine councils, in regard to _Jesus_; in whom, indeed, the Law
itself was to be fulfilled. For, while the civil affairs of the Jewish
people furnished the occasion and substance of their prophecies, the
divine wisdom, that inspired the prophets, so contrived, as that their
religious concerns should, also, be expressed, or implied in them.
The general theme of the _prophet_, was some, temporal success or
calamity of the Jewish state: the secret purpose of the _inspirer_ was,
occasionally at least, and when he saw fit, to predict the spiritual
kingdom of the Messiah[59].

We have innumerable instances of this sort in the Jewish prophets;
but few, more remarkable than that of Isaiah’s prophecy, addressed to
Ahaz, king of Judah, concerning his deliverance from the two kings
of Samaria and Damascus. In the _primary_, but lower sense of this
prophecy, the sign given was to assure Ahaz, that the land of Judæa
should _speedily_ be delivered from its two Royal invaders. But it had
likewise _another_, and more important purpose. The introduction of the
prophecy, the singular stress laid upon it, and the exact sense of the
terms in which it is expressed, make it probable, in a high degree,
that it had some such purpose: and the event hath clearly proved, that
the _sign given_ had a respect to the miraculous birth of Christ, and
to a deliverance much more momentous than that of Ahaz from his present
distressful situation—_Hear ye now_, O HOUSE OF DAVID—_The Lord
himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel_. _Isaiah_, vii. 13, 14.
Admit that these words are capable of being explained, in some sort,
of the _child_ now given to be a sign, to the King of Judæa, of his
deliverance within two or three years, as expressed in the following
verses; still, who sees not that terms so emphatical and energetic
are more _properly_ understood of _another_ child, to whose birth and
character they are found, in the event, to be exactly suited? And, if
more properly, who can doubt that these terms are _naturally_, that is,
reasonably understood of that other child, when we consider with what
ideas the mind of the prophet was stored, and what the ultimate end and
object was, by supposition, of the prophet’s inspiration? The child
promised was a _sign_ to Ahaz of his deliverance; yet a sign too, that
is, a _type_, to the house of David, of another deliverance, which they
expected, which their prophets had frequently foretold, and which we
have here announced in the _name_ of this miraculous child, IMMANUEL,
or eminently, _The Deliverer_.

There is nothing in this _sign_[60], thus interpreted, but what is easy
and unforced; I mean, if we bear in mind the genius and character of
the Jewish prophecies. The former event, signified in the prophecy,
was merely _civil_: the latter, concerned the _spiritual_ kingdom of
Christ. They were both predicted together: and the preceding event,
when it came to pass, was, further, to induce an _expectation_, that
the other event would, in due time, follow. For

2. Secondly, it appears, that, to excite attention to these SPIRITUAL
predictions, more obscure than the other, and regarding events more
remote, care was taken to secure the authority of the prophet, by the
completion of his _civil_ predictions in events, distinctly described,
and near at hand. Thus, Moses might be believed by the Jews in what
he said, _of a prophet to be raised up_, in a future age, _like to
himself_; when they saw his prophetic blessings and curses upon them,
according to their deserts in the land of Canaan, so speedily and so
punctually executed. Thus, too, their prophet, Isaiah, might reasonably
expect to find credit with them, for the glorious things predicted
by him of the great deliverer, the Messiah; when their deliverance
from the Babylonish captivity was seen so certainly to verify his
prediction of that event. The prophet himself exults in this argument,
as decisive and unanswerable. _Behold_, says he, in the text, _the
former things are come to pass_, i. e. the prophecies, I have delivered
to you concerning your redemption from the Assyrian bondage, will
soon be so exactly completed, that I regard them as things _past;
and therefore new things do I declare_; hence I claim your belief of
other prophecies, concerning a much greater redemption, to take place
hereafter, though there be no appearance, as yet, of any causes tending
to produce it, _for before they spring forth, I tell you of them_. And
this appears to be the general method of _all_ God’s prophets.

3. With these _new things_, these Spiritual prophecies concerning
the _first_ coming of the Messiah, were likewise intermixed other
prophecies, which ran out beyond that term, and prefigured the great
events of his SECOND coming: and the warrant for admitting _these_,
would be the completion of those other prophecies, in the person and
sufferings of Christ[61]. That there are such prophecies in the Old
Testament, will be shewn hereafter. In the mean time, it will not be
thought incredible, that, if Jesus be indeed the end of the prophetic
scheme, the revolutions of his _government_ should be foretold, as well
as the circumstances of his personal appearance; in other words, that
the consummation of that design, which Providence was carrying on,
would not be overlooked, when the steps and gradations of it were so
distinctly noted. For, in any reasonable design whatsoever, the _end_
is first and principally in view, though the _means_ engage, and may
seem to engross, the attention of its author. It will then, I say,
be no surprise to us to find, that prophecy set out with announcing
the kingdom of the Messiah; that it never lost sight of that future
œconomy; and only produced it into clearer view, as the season
approached for the introduction of it.

THUS MUCH concerning the _order and method_ of the Jewish prophecies;
in which one cannot but adore the profound wisdom of their author. The
_civil_ prophecies are, at once, the vehicle, and the credentials, of
the _spiritual_, concerning the _first_ coming of Jesus; and these
last, in their turn, support the credit of others, which point still
further at his _second_ coming: a subject, more than intimated by the
_legal_ prophets, but resumed and amply displayed by the _evangelical_.
Whence we see, that the prophetic system is so constructed, as, in the
progress and various evolutions of it, to illustrate itself, and to
afford an internal evidence of its divinity. One great purpose pervades
the whole: and the parts, of which it consists, gradually prepare and
mutually sustain each other.

But this subject, so curious and important, is not yet to be dismissed.
It remains to be considered, whether _chance_, or _imposture_, can in
any degree account for so extensive, so connected, and so intricate a
system.

On the very face of the prophetic scriptures it appears, that one
ultimate purpose is in the contemplation of all the prophets. This
purpose is unfolded by successive predictions, delivered in distant
times, under different circumstances, and by persons, who cannot
be suspected of acting in concert with each other. It does not
appear, that the later prophets always understood the drift of the
more ancient; or, that either of them clearly apprehended the whole
scope and purpose of their own predictions. Yet, on comparing all
their numerous prophecies with each other, and with the events, in
which it is now presumed they have had their completion, we find a
perfect harmony and consistency between them. Nothing is advanced
by one prophet, that is contradicted by another. An unity of design
is conspicuous in them all; yet without the least appearance of
_collusion_, since _each_ prophet hath his own peculiar views, and
enlarges on facts and circumstances, unnoticed by any other.

Further still, these various and successive prophecies are so
intimately blended, and, as we may say, incorporated with each
other, that the credit of all depends on the truth of each. For, the
accomplishment of them falling in different times, every preceding
prophecy becomes surety, as it were, for those that follow; and the
failure of any one must bring disgrace and ruin on all the rest.

Then, again, consider that the prophetic spirit, which kept operating
so uniformly and perpetually in what is called the _former age_,
ceased at that very time, when the great object, it had in view, was
disclosed; when that future œconomy, which it first and last predicted,
was introduced: a _time_, too, which was precisely determined by
the old prophets themselves. Could they answer for what _design_ or
_chance_ might be able to bring about? Is it credible, that this
perennial fount of prophecy, which ran so copiously from Adam to
Christ, and watered all the ages of the Jewish church, should stop,
at once, in so critical a season; and should never flow again in any
future age; if fortune, or fraud, or fanaticism, had dispensed its
streams, if any thing indeed, but the hand of God, had opened its
source, and directed its current?

Nor let it be objected that a succession of prophets was _interrupted_
for some ages before the coming of Christ. It was so: but not,
till preceding prophets had marked out the precise _time_ of his
coming[62]; not, till Malachi, with whom the word of prophecy ceased
for a time, had foretold that this interrupted series should be resumed
and finally closed by Elijah, the last Jewish prophet and _precursor_
of the Messiah[63]; and not, till it had been expressly declared, that
this eclipsed light of prophecy should break forth again with redoubled
lustre, in the _days_ of the Messiah[64]. Who would not conclude, then,
from this very intermission, that prophecy was given, or withheld, as
the wisdom of God ordained, and not as the caprice or policy of man
directed?

It may not be pretended, that the age, in which prophecy finally ceased
among the Jews, will account for the suppression of this faculty, “for
that it was an age of the greatest turbulency and disorder, and that
their ruin and dispersion soon after followed.” This pretence, I say,
is altogether frivolous. For it was precisely in those circumstances,
that their ancient prophets were most numerous, and their inspirations
most abundant. It was during the calamitous season of their
captivities, that the prophetic power had been most signally exercised
among the Jews. And now, when they were carried captive into all lands,
not a single prophet arose, or hath arisen to this day, either for
their reproof, or consolation[65].

If it be said, “that the pagan oracles ceased, too, about the same
time; and that the same cause, namely, the diffused light and knowledge
of the Augustan age, was fatal to both;” besides, that this diffusion
of light, for obvious reasons, was not likely to affect the Jewish
prophecies, and did not, as we certainly know, in any degree diminish
the credit of them, with that people, the fact itself, assumed in
the objection, is plainly false. For the pagan oracles continued
for several ages after that of Augustus; they became less frequent,
only, as Christianity gained ground; and were not silenced, but among
the last struggles of expiring paganism[66]. So that if the Jewish
prophecies, like those of the Gentile world, had been the issue of
_fraud_, or _fanaticism_ (_principles_, that operate at all times, and,
with redoubled force and activity, in the dark days of persecution) one
does not see, why they might not have continued to this day among the
bigoted professors of that religion.

Now, put all these things together, that is, The long duration of
the prophetic system—the mutual dependance and close connexion of
its several parts—the consistency and uniformity of its views,
all terminating in one point—and the final suppression of it (as
was likewise foretold) at the very time, when those views were
accomplished; consider, I say, all this, and see, if there be not
something more than a blind credulity in the advocates for the divinity
of such a system. See, if there be any instance upon record—of so
numerous prophecies—so long continued—so intimately related to each
other and to one common end—so apparently verified—and so signally
concluded. If there be, I shall not wonder at the suspense and
hesitation of _wise men_, on this subject: but if, on the other hand,
no such thing was ever seen, or heard of, out of the land of Judæa,
they must excuse us if we incline to think their diffidence misplaced,
and their scruples unnecessary, at least, if not disingenuous.

I descend no farther into a detail on the scriptural prophecies
concerning Christ’s _first coming_. The immensity of the subject,
and the plan prescribed to me in this Lecture, equally restrain me
from this attempt. _Obscurities_ there may, and must be, in so vast
a scheme: _Objections_ may, and must occur to the construction and
application of particular prophecies. But let any serious man take the
Bible into his hands; let him consider, not _all_ the prophecies in
that book, but such as are more obvious and intelligible; and let him
compare such _prophecies_, as he must acknowledge, and may, in part at
least, understand, with the _facts_, in which he sees their completion,
or so far, as he may think it _probable_ that they have been completed;
and I dare be confident that such an inquirer will be much struck
with the amount of the evidence from prophecy, in support of divine
revelation. If, indeed, on this general survey, he find nothing to
affect him, I shall not desire him to push his researches into the
more secret and mysterious prophecies: much less, shall I advise him to
wade through that cloud of smaller difficulties, in which the ignorant
temerity of some writers, and the _obscure diligence_ of others, hath
involved _this_, as it easily may any other, subject.

TO SPEAK PLAINLY, the only consideration, which to me seems likely
to perplex fair and candid minds, is this—“That the argument from
prophecy is understood to be addressed to those, who admit the divinity
of the Jewish scriptures—that the Jews themselves were eminently in
this situation—that, besides this advantage, the Jews were better
qualified, than any others, to interpret their own prophecies; and to
judge of their completion—and yet, that these very men neither were,
nor are convinced by this argument.”

Several things are here asserted, which deserve to be explained. I take
them in an inverted order.

I. It is said, “_that the Jews were not, and are not to this day,
convinced by the argument from prophecy_.” This allegation is in
part _false_: for multitudes[67], from among the Jews, were, in the
apostolic age, converted to Christianity; and these are well known
to have laid a peculiar stress on this argument. The greater part
of that people, indeed, disbelieved, and have continued to this day
in their infidelity. But then let it be considered, 1. that we have
an adequate cause of this effect, in the _prejudices_ of the Jewish
nation; _prejudices_, of which their whole history evidently convicts
them. 2. That, notwithstanding their rejection of Jesus, they admit the
existence and authority of those prophecies, which we apply to him;
and that they themselves have constantly applied these very prophecies
to their expected Messiah: so that the question between us is only
this, Whether they, or we, _rightly_ apply them. 3. That their perverse
obstinacy in refusing to submit to the evidence of their prophecies, is
itself foretold by their own prophets.

II. But it is further said, “_that their authority, in this
controversy, is greater than ours, for that they must best understand
their own prophecies, and judge best of their completion_.”

1. I do not perceive on what ground of reason this is said. The old
prophecies belong to us, as well as to them; and have been considered
with as much diligence by Christian, as by Jewish expositors. Their
customs, their history, their traditions, are equally known to both
parties. Their very language hath been studied by Christians with a
care, not inferior to that which the Jews themselves employ upon it;
with a _care_, that not unfrequently, in _both_, hath degenerated into
superstition.

If it be said, “that the _ancient_ Jews, that is, the Jews in the
time of Christ, must have been better qualified, than we now are,
to interpret the prophecies, the language, they spoke, being only
a dialect of that in which the prophecies are written,” the answer
is already given, under the last article: to which we may further
add, that Christianity being much better understood now, than it was
then, the force of the prophetic language concerning it (if, indeed,
the prophecies have any such thing in view) must be more distinctly
apprehended, in many instances, by Christians at this day, than it
could be by the Jews, even when they spoke a dialect of the Hebrew
language. So that still I do not see, upon the whole, what advantage
the Jews, whether of ancient or modern times, can be thought to have
over us, in explaining the prophetic scriptures. And then

2. As to the _completion_ of the prophecies, the same histories are in
the hands of both: and if they do not apply them, as we do the appeal
is open to common sense. Every man is left at liberty to judge for
himself, which side is best supported in the application of them. The
prejudice might, indeed, be thought equal on _both_ sides, if it were
not decided by their own scriptures, that no prejudice of any people
upon earth was ever so invincible, as that of the Jews.

3. Lastly, on both heads, there is a peculiar presumption, that they,
and not we, are misled by prejudice: It is this: They were led by their
prophecies, as interpreted by themselves, to expect that they would be
completed at the _time_, in which, we say, they were completed; and it
was not till after the coming of Christ that they began to interpret
them differently, and to look out for another completion of them. Judge
then, if they, or we, are likely to have erred most, through prejudice,
in expounding and applying the prophecies. The natural and proper sense
will be thought to be that, in which we take them; for that sense
occurred first to themselves, and was, in truth, _their_ sense, before
we adopted it.

When I say—_their sense_—I mean, especially, in respect to the
_time_, which they had fixed for the accomplishment of the prophecies
concerning the Messiah: for, as to their giving a _temporal_ sense
to some prophecies, in which we find a _spiritual_, that is another
matter, concerning which, as I said, the appeal lies to every competent
and dispassionate inquirer. In the mean time, it must be thought
some presumption in favour of the Christian interpretation, that,
whereas the JEWS, in rejecting a spiritual or mystical sense of those
prophecies (which yet is admitted by them, without scruple, on other
occasions, and is well suited to the genius of their whole religion)
are driven to the necessity of supposing a _two-fold Messias_—a new
conceit, taken up, without warrant from their scriptures, and against
their own former ideas and expectations—WE, on the contrary, by the
help of that spiritual sense, are able to explain all the prophecies
of _one and the same Messias_, conformably to the _event_, and even to
the _time_ which the Jews themselves had prefixed for the completion of
them.

Now, when, of two interpretations, _one_ has apparently all the marks
of shift, constraint, and distress in it, and the _other_ comes out
easy, uniform, and consistent; we may guess beforehand, as I said,
which of them is likely to be well-founded.

III. Still it is pretended, “that the argument from prophecy is
properly addressed to those only who admit the divinity of the Jewish
scriptures, as the Jews have invariably done; and that it hath no
force, but on that previous supposition. Why then is the argument
pressed on others, who do not believe the divine authority of those
scriptures? And how should it prevail with _any_, whether believers or
not, when the Jews themselves, who of all men most firmly believe that
authority, are not convinced by it?”

The _latter_ part of the difficulty, which respects the incredulity of
the Jews, hath been already removed; so far, I mean, as it is founded
on their prejudices. As for the _assertion_, “That the argument from
prophecy presupposes the truth and divinity of the Jewish scriptures,
and must therefore have most weight with the Jews, or rather hath no
weight at all, but with them, or with others, who admit that common
principle,” though something, like this, may have been said, I take it
to be wholly unsupported, as well by _fact_, as by any _good reason_.

1. I argue against this assumption from _fact_; that is, from the
_method_, taken by the early Christians to convert the Gentile world,
and from the _success_ of that method.

If we look into the history of the Gospel, we shall find the
Apostle Peter, pressing this argument from prophecy on the gentile
Cornelius[68]; and the Apostle Paul, urging it with effect, on the
Jews indeed first, but also on the Asiatic Gentiles[69]. If we turn to
the Christian apologists, we shall find them addressing this topic to
Gentile unbelievers, nay, as venturing the whole cause of Christianity
on this single argument[70]. Justin Martyr makes as free use of it in
his apology to the Antonines, as in his dialogues with Trypho. We know,
too, the success of this argument, thus employed, in many instances:
and therefore see, as well the _fitness_ of the argument to produce
this effect, as the _judgment_ of the Apostles and primitive Christians
concerning its fitness. But to come

2. _to the reason of the thing_.

The Jews, who professed to believe, and did, in fact, believe, the
divine inspiration of their sacred oracles, were, doubtless, bound
by their own principles, to expect with assurance the due completion
of them. The Gentiles, who did not previously respect those oracles
as of divine authority, but regarded them only in the light of human
conjectures, yet saw that such passages, whether we call them oracular
or conjectural, did, in truth, occur in the Jewish scriptures; and
were obliged to admit, on the faith of historical testimony, that
those scriptures were composed by the persons whose names they bear,
and at the times fixed for the composition of them. What then is the
difference of the two cases? Only this: the Jews believed that their
oracles would be fulfilled, because they held them to be divine;
the Gentiles had to wait till those oracles were fulfilled, before
they acknowledged their divinity. In either case, the argument is
independent of the belief, or the expectation, and turns on the
completion only. Then, indeed, the Jew sees that his belief was well
founded, and the Gentile admits that the prediction was divine.

The mistake would be equal, on the other hand, to conceive, that the
argument from prophecy pre-supposes the divine inspiration of the New
Testament. It pre-supposes only the historical truth of that book.
Admit this, and compare the events recorded in that history, with
the prophecies to which they correspond, and the divinity of both
Testaments is proved. For then, the pretensions of Jesus are made good,
by the _completion_ of the prophecies; and the inspiration of the
prophets is concluded, from the _delivery_ of them.

In both cases (let me repeat it) it is not the authority of the books
containing the prophecies, nor of the books recording the facts in
which they are fulfilled, but simply the _completion_ of the prophecies
in those facts, seen and acknowledged, which infers the divinity of
either Testament. Even the Jew would retract his high opinion of the
prophecies, if he did not admit or expect the accomplishment of them;
and the Christian would renounce his faith in Jesus, if his history
did not accord to the prophecies, alledged.

’Tis true, that, with either, the argument would gain more _attention_,
than with such as professed no previous belief in the divinity of
the Old or New Testament. But its force is really the same, on both
suppositions. It lies merely in the conviction, which one hath from the
evidence produced, that certain prophetic passages were delivered in
the _Old_ Testament, and have been fulfilled by certain corresponding
events, related in the _New_.

On the whole, there is no reason to conclude, that we are not as good
judges of the argument from prophecy, as the Jews were; or, that this
argument ought to have the less weight with us, because the Jews
were not convinced by it. For the argument doth in no degree depend
on _faith_, but is calculated to produce it. It is equally strong,
or equally weak, to a Christian, or Jew, or even to an unbeliever:
the sole point in question being this, Whether such things, as were
prophetically delivered, appear to have been fulfilled: a point, on
which common sense and common honesty will equally decide, on every
supposition.

I know, indeed, that, unless we suppose the inspiration of the
prophets, _some_ passages, delivered by them, will not so probably be
thought to _intend_ Christ, as they will be, if we acknowledge that
principle: and, on the other hand, that there are _some_ circumstances
in the history of Jesus, which will not be so readily seen to _refer_
to preceding prophecies, if the inspiration of Jesus and his Apostles
be not previously admitted. But I do not argue, at present, from either
of these topics. There are passages enough, clearly _predictive_ of
the Messiah, and clearly _accomplished_ in him, to afford a solid
foundation for the argument from prophecy, as here instituted, without
looking out for any other of more nice and ambiguous interpretation.

Hence we see the dangerous mistake of those, who contend that the
argument from prophecy hath not, of itself, the nature of a _direct
positive proof_ of our religion. Prophecies fulfilled, I mean such
prophecies as _those_ in question, prove invincibly the divine
inspiration of the prophets. But, if the prophets were inspired, the
divine mission of him, in whom the predicted marks of the Messiah
meet, must needs be acknowledged. And what more is required to prove
the truth of Christianity? Not even the evidence of _miracles_,
performed by Christ, if the prophecies had not made them one mark
of his character. The truth is, _Prophecies_ and _Miracles_ are, in
themselves, two distinct positive proofs. Either proof is _direct_,
and would have been sufficient, if the other had not been given. But
the divine goodness, for our more abundant satisfaction, and to leave
infidelity without excuse, hath made the one proof dependent on the
other: so that neither the argument from prophecy is complete, without
the _miracles_; nor the argument from miracles, as applied to Christ,
unless he likewise appear to have fulfilled the _prophecies_. Can
we desire a stronger proof, that neither _they_, who predicted the
_miracles_, were _false prophets_, nor _he_, who claimed to himself the
application of ALL the _prophecies_, was a _false Messiah_?

These reflexions, on the _method and order_ of the prophecies, of those
especially concerning Christ’s FIRST COMING; together with what has
been said on the _independency_ of this argument on Jewish or Christian
concessions; may serve to convince us, That we shall do well to suspend
our conclusions concerning the evidence of prophecy, till we have
examined the _whole_ subject. In the mean time, _this part_ of the
subject, thus far opened and explained, leads us, with advantage, to
the consideration of _that_, which is yet behind and is the peculiar
object of this Lecture, I mean _the prophecies concerning_ CHRIST’S
SECOND COMING.




SERMON VI.

PROPHECIES CONCERNING CHRIST’S SECOND COMING.

ISAIAH xlii. 9.

_Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I
declare: before they spring forth, I tell you of them._


It must strike the most careless reader of the prophecies to observe,
that the general subject of them all was announced from the earliest
time, and was only drawn out more distinctly by succeeding prophets:
that, of the two _ages_, into which the world of God, I mean his
_religious_ world, is divided in holy scripture, the _former_, which
abounds most in prophecy, was plainly made subservient to the
_latter_: that not only the events of that preceding age are foretold
by its own prophets, but that the fortunes of the last, and very remote
age, are occasionally revealed by them; and that the same oracles,
which attest the _first coming_ of Christ, as if impatient to be
confined to so narrow bounds, overflow, as it were, into the future
age, and expatiate on the principal facts and circumstances of his
_second coming_.

By this divine artifice, if I may so speak, the two dispensations, the
Jewish and Christian, are closely tied together, or rather compacted
into one intire harmonious system; such, as we might expect, if it were
indeed formed, and conducted by him, _to whom are known all his works
from the beginning_[71].

So that, in respect of the fortunes, which were to befall the Christian
church, even in the _latter days_, we may still ask, in the triumphant
terms of the Jewish prophet—_Have ye not known? Have ye not heard?
Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood
from the foundation of the earth[72]?_

But, though this subject was opened by the old prophets, so far
as seemed expedient in that _age_, and clearly enough, to shew
the integrity and continuity of the whole system, it was more
illustriously, because more distinctly, displayed by the evangelical
prophets.

And here, again, the same provision of wisdom and goodness meets us, as
before. The Christian prophets, like the Jewish, bespeak our attention
to what they reveal of the greater and more distant events in their
dispensation, by other less momentous prophecies, which were speedily
to be accomplished[73]; thus, impressing upon us an awful sense of
their divine foresight, and procuring an easy credit from us to their
subsequent predictions: _while the events, which both these prophetic
schemes point out, are so distributed through all time, as to furnish,
successively, to the several ages of the world, the means of a fresh
and still growing conviction_[74].

AS THE ORDER of these Discourses, now, leads me to exemplify this
_last_ observation, I shall do it in THREE remarkable prophecies
concerning the Christian church; I mean those, which respect 1. THE
DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 2. THE DISPERSION OF THE JEWS. And 3. THE
CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES.

I refer to these prophecies, as well known. They are in the number
of those, which, in part, were delivered by the Jewish prophets; and
afterwards, more distinctly revealed by the Christian.

I. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH CITY AND TEMPLE, is an event of the
utmost moment in the view of revealed religion. It accomplished a great
number of prophecies, and vindicated the honour of Jesus, by a signal
vengeance on his murderers. It answered, besides, _other_ important
purposes of divine providence; by putting a visible and necessary end
to the Jewish œconomy, which was now to give way to the dispensation
of the Messiah; and by dispersing the Jews into all lands, for many
wise and admirable reasons. Hence, of all the prophecies, delivered
by Christ himself (who was a prophet, though indeed _much more than a
prophet_) _This_ alone is displayed by him, at large, and in all its
circumstances.

If any man, unacquainted with these matters, should doubt, whether
this prophecy of Jesus, as recorded in three of the four Gospels, were
not delivered, that is, _forged_, after the event, I might refer him
to the numerous writers on that subject. But I hold it sufficient to
say, 1, On the faith of all antiquity, that these Gospels were not
only written, but published to the world, before the destruction of
Jerusalem—2, that the early date of their composition is apparent from
many internal characters, dispersed through these writings—3, that no
interpolation of this prophecy could afterwards take place, because the
prophecy is interwoven with the general thread of the history—and,
4, lastly, that no unbeliever of the primitive times, whether Jew or
Gentile, when pressed, as both frequently were, by this prophecy,
appears to have had recourse to the charge, either of forgery, or
interpolation[75].

The authenticity and early date of the prophecy is, then, on these
grounds, assumed.

I will, further, suppose (because the history of Josephus invincibly
proves it) that all the particulars, mentioned in this prophecy,
concurred in the _event_.

“But this, you will say, might well be: for what more _uniform_, than
the characters of distress in a _great_ city, forced and desolated by
a superior enemy? And what more _probable_, than that, some time or
other, such should be the fate of _every_ great city?”

It may further be insinuated, “That, if ever Jerusalem was to be
destroyed, the obstinate humour of its inhabitants, and the _nature
of the place_, would probably draw this destruction upon it, in the
way it actually happened, in the way of _siege_[76]: that, then, all
the miseries, endured by the Jews, would naturally fall on a desperate
people from an irritated and successful conqueror; above all, in
ancient times, when conquest and clemency were little acquainted with
each other: that, as for the preceding _wars, famines, pestilences, and
earth-quakes_ (which are mentioned, in the prophecy, as _signs_ of the
approaching desolation) _these_, are such usual things in the course of
the world, as may be safely made the prognostics of any predicted event
whatsoever: that Jesus, therefore, as any other wise man, might form
his prediction on these principles; and trust to time, and the passions
of mankind, for the completion of it.”

Now, let all this be allowed (and scepticism itself will hardly make
other or greater demands upon us) still, the honour of Jesus stands
secure; and this fine fabric of suspicion is overturned at once, if we
reflect on _two or three_ circumstances, unluckily, and, if the prophet
be not divine, unnecessarily wrought into the texture of this famous
prophecy.

_First_, I observe, that this destruction was to come from _the hands
of the Romans_[77]; and, without doubt, if it were to happen in any
reasonable time, it could not so probably be expected to come from any
other quarter. But, then, was it _likely_ that Judæa, at that time a
Roman province, should be thus isolated by its own masters? Was it
to be _presumed_, that so small a province should dare to engage in
a formal contest with Rome, the mistress of the world, as well as of
Judæa? with Rome, then the zenith of her power, and irresistible to
all nations? Was it _conceivable_, if any future distraction of that
mighty empire should tempt the Jews to oppose their feeble efforts to
its high fortune, that a vengeance so signal, so complete, should be
taken upon them? that nothing less than a total _extermination_ should
be proposed, and effected? The ruin of the temple at Jerusalem was to
be so entire, that _one stone should not be left upon another_. Allow
for the exaggerated terms of a prophetic description; still, was it
_imaginable_, that the Romans should, in any proper sense of the words,
execute this denunciation? Was it _their_ way, as it was afterwards
that of the Goths, to wage war with _stones_? Was it a principle with
_them_, to beat down the _pride_ of buildings, as well as of _men_[78]?
Would even their _policy_, or their _pride_, have suffered them to blot
out an ancient, a renowned, an illustrious temple, the chief ornament
of their province, the glory of the East, and the trophy of their own
conquests?

Such an event was very improbable, in contemplation: and history shews,
that it did not come to pass in any ordinary way. For the instrument,
in the hands of Heaven, of this exterminating vengeance, was a man,
the most unlikely of all others to inflict it; a man, who by nature
abhorred such extremities; who, in fact, did his utmost to prevent this
dreadful catastrophe, and _could not_ prevent it[79].—Still, a more
unmanageable circumstance, than this, occurs in the prophecy. For,

_Secondly_, it is implied that ONE of our Lord’s disciples should
survive this desolation[80]: and it is expressly asserted, that the
then _subsisting generation should not pass away, before all these
things were accomplished_[81]. They WERE accomplished, within forty
years from the date of the prophecy, and before the death of that
disciple. The fact is certain and undeniable: I leave the rest to your
own reflexions.

_Thirdly_, warning is given in this prophecy to the disciples of Jesus,
to fly from this impending ruin; and a signal is held out to them,
for that purpose[82]. It is further predicted, that they should avail
themselves of this signal and so entirely escape the snare, in which
the rest of their countrymen should be taken, that _not a hair of their
heads should perish_[83]. And this part of the prophecy was, it seems,
completed[84].

_Lastly_, this prophecy was incumbered with another strange event,
_needlessly_ incumbered with it, if the whole were an imposture. It
is said, _that the Gospel should be preached in all the world, for a
witness unto all nations_, before it should be fulfilled. Was it not
enough to say, that the prophecy should be accomplished in the time of
that generation, and in the life-time of St. John, without adding so
unlikely a circumstance, as that a general promulgation of the Gospel,
by a few unlettered and unfriended fishermen, should precede the
accomplishment of it?—I know, that this part of the prophecy admits a
secondary sense: but, in the primary sense, it was so far fulfilled, as
to astonish us with the divine foresight of its author.

I omit other considerations, that might be alledged. But you see
that, setting aside such particulars in the prophecy, as sceptical
men may think themselves able to draw within the sphere of _human
conjecture_, there are several things expressed in it, so strange to
all apprehension, so unlikely to happen, so impossible for any natural
sagacity to foresee, and yet so certainly and punctually fulfilled,
that nothing short of _divine inspiration_ can possibly account for
them. The prophecy, in all its parts, is divine: but in _these_, its
divinity is clear and incontestable.

II. THE DISPERSION OF THE JEWS, is another event, which deserves your
consideration.

Moses himself had predicted this circumstance of their fortune, in
terms of the greatest energy. He had told them—_that they should be
removed into all the kingdom of the earth, and that they should be
scattered among all people from one end of the earth even unto the
other_—that, among the nations, into which they should be driven,
_they should find no ease, nor rest, and that they should be only
oppressed and crushed alway_—that they should _become an astonishment,
a proverb, and a by-word among all nations_—and that _their plagues
should be wonderful, and of long continuance_[85]. These prophecies had
been, to a certain degree, fulfilled in other parts of their history:
but there was to be a time, when _the wrath of God should come upon
them to the uttermost_[86]. This time was now come, when their city was
destroyed, and their land desolated, by the arms of Titus. Then, as
Jesus prophesied of them, _were the days of vengeance, that all things,
which were written, should be fulfilled_: then, were they _to be led
away captive into all nations_: and thenceforth, _was Jerusalem to be
trodden down of the Gentiles, until_ THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES SHOULD
BE FULFILLED[87].

Nor say, that this _last_ prophecy is _indefinite_: for _the times
of the Gentiles_ is a period, well known in the prophetic writings;
a period, of long duration indeed, as the event hath shewn; yet a
period, marked out by other prophecies (which may come, in turn, to
be considered in this Lecture) no less distinctly, than their other
captivities had been.

For, to all these predictions there must be added _one_ more, which
expressly asserts the return of this people, in some future age, from
their long and wretched dispersion: for _blindness, in part_, only,
_hath happened to Israel_; and that again, _till the fulness of the
Gentiles be come in_[88]. This, St. Paul terms _a mystery_: and yet
the ancient prophets had a glimpse of it, when they foretold, _that
the Lord would not make a full end of them_[89], and that a remnant of
them _should remain, and should return in the latter days_[90]. Moses
himself, who had denounced such heavy judgements upon them, and of so
_long continuance_, during their dispersion, had mingled, with his
woes, this one note of mercy—_And yet for all that, when they lie in
the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I
abhor them, to destroy them_ UTTERLY, _and to break my covenant with
them_[91].

Consider these predictions, and compare them with the present and past
state of this people for seventeen hundred years; and see, if there be
nothing to take your attention, or, rather, your astonishment, in the
completion of them.

Why is this dreadful vengeance, _singular_ in its circumstances, and
never yet experienced by any other people on the face of the earth,
why is this peculiar vengeance executed on the Jews?—Or, whatever the
_cause_ may be, is not the _fact_ such as was predicted?

“The predictions, you will say, have the appearance of being fulfilled.
But where is the wonder, that a people, distinguished by a _singular_
religion, and above measure _addicted_ to it, should continue to exist
under that distinction, and should be every where known by it? That a
people, on account of their profession, more than commonly obnoxious
to the other religious sects, among whom the earth hath been chiefly
parcelled out—to the _Heathen_, for their unconquerable aversion
to idolatry—to the _Christians_, for the atrocious murder of their
founder—to the _Mahometans_, for the constant rejection of their
prophet—should be the scorn and outcast of all three; and that, being
excluded from the only country, to which they have any attachment,
they should be vagabonds on the earth, and should disperse themselves
indifferently through every quarter of it, as caprice, or interest, or
convenience, invites them? that, lastly, being thus distinguished from
all men, and thus at enmity with all, they should never be suffered
to enter into any other civil community, or to establish a distinct
community of their own?”

But the wonder doth not lie, altogether, where these questions seem to
place it. That the Jews, while they profess themselves such, should be
thus treated, may be natural enough: but that they should _continue_,
for so many ages, under such treatment; every where and always spurned,
reviled, oppressed; yet neither worn out by this usage; nor induced
by it to renounce their offensive profession, and take refuge in the
mass of people among whom they live; that neither time, nor custom, nor
suffering, should get the better of their bigotry or patience; but that
they should still subsist a numerous, a distinct, a wretched people, as
they do, to this day—all this hath something prodigious in it, which
the common principles of human nature will not easily explain[92].

We, who admit the divine origin of their religion; and, adore, with
them, the extraordinary providence, by which their polity was so long
administered and upheld; can, better than any others, explain this
difficulty. For, what so likely to produce an invincible attachment to
their Law, as the abundant evidence, they had of its authority? But
neither will this account of the matter be found satisfactory. For,
as if on purpose to discredit this solution, their history informs
us, That _ten_, of the twelve tribes, which originally composed their
nation, did, in fact, disappear under their last captivity, and were,
in a good measure at least, absorbed in it. If such, then, was the
fate of _Israel_ in its dispersion, within the compass of not many
generations, and yet the relics of _Judah_ are still preserved in all
countries to this day, what better or other reason can we assign for
this difference of fortune in two branches of the same people, equally
attached to the same divine Law, than that the _former_ were left to
the natural consequences of a dispersion, and that the _latter_ were
purposely kept from being affected by them, as the prophecies had
distinctly foretold?

If it be still said, “That there is nothing more extraordinary in
this continuance of the Jews, under their dispersion, than of other
religionists in like circumstances; of the _Christians_ for instance,
under the Turkish dominion;” the cases (to say nothing of the
difference in point of _time_) are, in many respects, entirely unlike.

The Asiatic CHRISTIANS derive a confidence, and some degree of
protection, from the many flourishing Christian empires, which subsist
in other quarters of the world.

THEY, can perform all the duties of their religion, as perfectly in the
countries, where they reside, as in any other.

THEY, have the future hopes of the Gospel, the proper sanction of their
Law, to support them in all the distresses, to which their Christian
profession may, at present, expose them. What is it to them, as St.
Austin well observed in a like case, that they suffer for a season
in a strange land; when even in their _own_, that is, a Christian
country, they are still obliged, by the principles of their religion,
to consider themselves, _as strangers and pilgrims on the earth_[93]?

The condition of the JEWS, on the other hand, is widely different.
THEY, profess a religion, founded on temporal promises, only: and how
miserably these have failed them, the experience of many ages hath now
shewn.

The JEWS, are shut out from the only country in the world, where the
several rites and ordinances of their religion can be regularly and
_lawfully_ observed.

The JEWS, have, besides, the sensible mortification of knowing, that
all their brethren of the dispersion are every where in equal distress
with themselves; and that there is not one Jewish state or sovereignty
subsisting on the face of the whole earth.

It follows, that in the JEWS, we find nothing but their _destiny_, so
plainly read to them by their own prophets, as well as ours, to account
for their long continuance in their present dispersion: whereas, the
_Asiatic Christians_ have many resources of comfort within themselves;
and may subsist, in Mahometan countries, on the same general motives
and inducements, which sustain the courage of other unhappy men.

Yet, notwithstanding the advantages, here pointed out, on the side of
the Asiatic Christians, the _fact_ is, that they are reduced to a very
small number, and are insensibly melting away under the oppressions
of their Ottoman masters; so that in no long time, if that enormous
tyranny should be permitted to continue, they may, not improbably,
quite vanish out of those countries, where they had formerly so many
and flourishing churches: whereas, the Jews continue every where to
abound in great numbers; they thrive under their oppressions; and
seem to multiply amidst their distresses; as if the order of things
were reversed in regard to them, and the same causes operated to the
conservation of this people, which tend so naturally to the waste and
destruction of every other.

Still, I have another reflexion, or two, to make on this interesting
subject.

1. It deserves to be considered, that the _natives_ of any country,
though subdued and enslaved by a foreign nation, may, indeed, subsist
very long under that distinction. Thus, the Gentoo Indians have
preserved their name and race, under their Mahometan invaders: and
thus, the Moors, if they had not been violently expelled, might
have continued a distinct people for many ages, in their old Spanish
quarters. But that small colonies of men, transported into _strange_
and populous nations, should preserve a distinct existence, and not
insensibly moulder away, and mix themselves with their numerous native
masters; This, I think, is without example in the history of mankind.
If the Jews might be expected to abound any where, it should, methinks,
be in Judæa; where the sight of the _holy land_, and the memory of
their past fortunes, might invigorate their prejudices, and perpetuate
their attachment to the Jewish name and worship. But it so happens,
that the number of Jews in that country hath now for many ages been
inconsiderable, while they swarm in every other.

2. It should, further, I think, be observed, that a _sect_, whether
you will call it of _religion_, or _philosophy_, may subsist through a
long tract of ages; I mean, that certain opinions may continue to be
professed by some people, or other, without intermission; as may be
true of the _doctrine_ concerning _the two principles_, at all times
so prevalent in the East; of that species of eastern _idolatry_, which
consists in the worship of _fire_; and in other instances. But that
these opinions, in circumstances any thing like those of the Jews,
should still be professed, not only by some, but by the _same_ men,
that is, by men known to be of the same extraction, as well as of a
certain persuasion; this, again, is, I think, a circumstance of great
singularity, and altogether unprecedented in the case of any other
people. Who knows, of what race or family the present Manichees are
descended, or the professors of the old Persian idolatry? The followers
of the Mosaic law, are every where known to be of the stock of Abraham.
They are distinguished in all places, as being Jews by _descent_, as
well as by _Religion_.

3. Supposing, what I think cannot be shewn, that the history of the
world furnishes an instance or two of a people circumstanced in all
respects, as the Jews are; these extraordinary cases would not much
abate the wonder, we are now contemplating. For how happened it, that
a prophecy delivered above three thousand years ago concerning the
fate of a _particular_ people, should be so exactly verified, as it
has hitherto been, when that fate is so far from being a common one,
that it has only taken place, in one or two instances besides, within
the compass of so many ages? And still more, how should it enter into
the head of Moses to deliver this prophecy, when, at the time of his
delivering it, he had absolutely no instance before his eyes of such
fate, in the case of _any_ people?

These things, then, deserve to be well and seriously considered.

Lastly, We believe, on the faith of the sacred oracles, that the
Jews shall _never be destroyed utterly_, but shall exist a distinct
people, as they have hitherto done, _till the times of the Gentiles are
fulfilled_. But here, you will say, the prophets indulged a natural
prejudice in favour of their own nation; it being the way of all people
to delight in such dreams of _existence and perpetuity_. It may be so:
But see, whether this _dream_ hath ever yet been so far realized, in
the case of any other people. The Romans, for instance, were as partial
to themselves, and doted as much on the idea of their _perpetuity_, as
the Jews. But what now is become of their _eternal empire_? Consider,
therefore, the singular fate of the Jews through so many ages, and see
whether it be not credible from what is past, that the prophet was
moved by something more than a spirit of _national vanity_, when he
said, _Fear thou not, O Jacob my servant, saith the Lord, for I am
with thee; for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have
driven thee_, BUT I WILL NOT MAKE A FULL END OF THEE[94].

To these prophecies concerning _Jerusalem_, and the _Jews_, I add

III. _A third, concerning_ THE CALL AND CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES TO
CHRISTIANITY.

This prophecy is very remarkable, whether we consider—_the matter of
it_—_the persons, by whom it was delivered_—or, _the manner, in which
it hath been fulfilled_.

1. As it had been declared from the beginning, that in the promised
seed, _all the nations of the earth should be blessed_, so the Gospel,
or, the good tidings of that blessing, was, in due time, to be
communicated to _all nations_. Further still, this Gospel was not only
to be published to all nations, but to be acknowledged and received by
them. There are numberless prophecies to this purpose in the books
of the Old Testament: prophecies, which say expressly—_that God
would give unto the Messiah the heathen for his inheritance, and the
uttermost parts of the earth for his possession_[95]—_that from the
rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, his name should
be great among the Gentiles_[96]—_It is a light thing_, says the
prophet Isaiah, addressing himself, in the person of the Almighty, to
the Messiah, _that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes
of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will also give
thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to
the end of the earth_[97]. And Jesus himself, when he commissioned his
Apostles to publish his doctrine, did it in these words—GO YE INTO ALL
THE WORLD, AND PREACH THE GOSPEL TO EVERY CREATURE[98].

It is unquestionable, therefore, from these and other passages[99],
that not the Jews only, but all nations were to be instructed in the
Christian faith; that the Gospel was to be an universal religion;
and that, thus, the Messiah was to be, in every sense, the Saviour of
mankind. There is no doubt, I say, but that such is the language of the
prophets; and that they clearly suppose the dispensation of the Gospel
to have these views, and to terminate in this event.

But now, let any man consider with himself, what it is to proselyte
the whole race of mankind to one faith, and to one religion. Let him
revolve in his mind this great, this magnificent idea. Let him, next,
turn his thoughts on what history and experience may suggest to him on
the subject. And then let him tell us, whether there be not something
extraordinary in this project; whether, indeed, there be any other
example of this sort in the annals of mankind.

In the old world, the institutors of _pagan religion_ looked no
further, than to single communities: each destined his ceremonies
for his own people only; and never presumed so far on the truth or
importance of his religious scheme, as to set it up for a standard of
belief or worship to the other nations of the earth. Even the _Jewish
ritual_ was so constituted as to respect the Jews only, and was even
practicable no where but in the land of Judæa.

But this idea of universality was equally strange to the _Doctors_,
as to the Legislators, of the ancient world. Sects of philosophy,
there were many; espoused with zeal, and propagated with industry; and
some of them, of no small extent. Yet the most sanguine, or the most
successful of these speculatists never conceived so much as the idea
of bringing all nations into their system. They presumed, indeed, that
truth, or probability at least, was on the side of their favourite
opinions; but they beheld a neglect of them in others, with a sort of
indifference; and, contenting themselves with their own superior skill
or felicity, left it to the rest of the world to philosophize in their
own way, and on their own principles. They seem not to have thought it
either necessary or possible, that their own sentiments should become
the standing, universal persuasion of mankind.

_Ambition_, I know, hath been sometimes enterprizing enough to think of
subduing the whole world. But this was the ambition of _power_, not of
religion, or philosophy: it was an ambition to subdue the _bodies_, not
the minds of men. This _last_ was a project, too big for a Cæsar or an
Alexander, much more, for a Numa or an Aristotle, to entertain. And I
think it certain, that, except in the scheme of Christianity, or such
other schemes of revelation as have been copied from it[100], we shall
no where find the idea of _universality_ to have taken place in any
religious or philosophical sect whatsoever[101].

If then this idea was _familiar_ to the Jewish and Christian prophets,
you will, at least, conclude that this circumstance is remarkable
enough to engage your attention; and you will naturally ask, how it
came to pass that those prophets should adopt so strange a fancy,
which appears not to have entered into the views or conceptions of
other men.

When you are in this train of inquiry, it will surprize you still more
to find,

2. _By what persons, these prophecies_, so remarkable for the _matter_
of them, _were announced_.

The publishers of this extraordinary doctrine were, in one word, JEWS:
that is, men of the most narrow and contracted minds; men, brought
up in the highest conceit of themselves, and in the utmost scorn and
contempt of the Gentiles; men, accustomed to think themselves the only
favourites of Heaven, and to regard the rest of the world, as outcasts
of its providence; men, in short, induced, partly, by the genius of
their religion, ill understood, and partly, by their carnal temper,
long indulged, to believe with assurance the perpetuity, the eternity
of their divine law; and to deem it impossible that God should reign
anywhere but in the land of Israel, or should impart his blessings to
any that lived out of the Jewish pale.

Was it, now, to be expected of such men, as these, that they should
enlarge their ideas so far as to form the project of a new and
universal religion; a religion, not imprinted outwardly on the flesh,
but _written in the heart_; a religion, that was to supersede and
evacuate the law of Moses, to which they were so immoderately addicted,
and to enlighten and bless and save the heathen, whom they so perfectly
despised and abhorred?

You will suspect, perhaps, that the meaning of these prophecies was
no more, than that the Jewish Law should finally prevail over all
other Laws, and be the sole predominant religion of the whole earth: a
prejudice, very likely, it may be said, to possess the minds of such a
people as the Jews; and suitable enough to that zeal, which prompted
them _to compass sea and land_, as Jesus himself observed of them, _to
make one proselyte_[102].

But the contrary is apparent from the _structure_ of the Jewish Law,
which, as I said, was so contrived, that it could not be observed out
of Judæa—from the _tenour_ of that Law, addressed only to the house
of Israel, and not obligatory to any other people—from express
_declarations_ of the prophets themselves; who call the dispensation
of the Messiah, _a new Covenant_, a covenant _written in the heart_,
in opposition to the law of circumcision[103]; who say, that the Lord
will _create new heavens and a new earth_, that is, in the prophetic
language, will institute a _new_ dispensation of religion, different
from that, which he had given to the Jews, and _subversive_ of it[104];
who, lastly, speak of this dispensation, as of _one_, that should be
established under _a new name_, and should be embraced by the Gentiles,
as _such_, that is, by men, converted immediately to this new religion
from their state of Gentilism, without passing through the strait gate
of the Jewish Law[105].

Judge, then, whether the prophets did not mean more than a
_proselytism_ to their own religion, when they predicted, and in
such terms, the future conversion of the Gentiles; and whether such
ideas, as these, could ever have entered into the hearts of Jews, if
something, besides and above the natural suggestion of their own minds,
had not inspired their prophecies.

Add to all this, if you please, that Jesus was himself a Jew, and (to
regard him as a man only) in the lowest class of the Jews, that is, of
the most confined and bigoted education; and yet was not restrained by
his prejudices from giving that sublime command to his followers—GO
AND TEACH ALL NATIONS.

But enough on the _doctrine_ itself, and on the _character_ of its
teachers. It remains only

3. To add one word, _on the manner, in which this prophecy_, concerning
the conversion of the Gentile world, _appears to have been completed_.

There are especially TWO prophecies on this subject, which merit our
attentive consideration. ONE of them asserts, that the conversion of
the Gentile world shall take its rise from small and very unpromising
beginnings, and yet shall prevail speedily and to a vast extent;
the OTHER, that it shall prevail by pacific means only, without the
intervention of any force or violence whatsoever.

1. The FORMER of these prophecies is expressed thus—_A little one
shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord
will hasten it in his time_[106]. In allusion to this prophecy,
concerning the rise and progress of Christianity, is that parable of
our Lord applied to the kingdom of heaven—_the kingdom of heaven_,
says he, _is like to a grain of mustard-seed, which a man took and
sowed in his field: which indeed is the least of all seeds; but when
it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree: so
that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof_[107].
And, with regard to the _celerity_ with which this tree should grow
up, we have a prophecy from Christ himself, and that wonderfully
fulfilled—that _his Gospel should be preached to all the world for a
testimony to all nations_, before the destruction of Jerusalem, or
within forty years from the date of the prophecy.

Now, consider the state of the Gospel, at our Lord’s ascension. It
was left in the hands of a few, mean, unlearned, dispirited persons:
without any countenance from authority; and with every difficulty,
every terror, opposed to them, and placed distinctly within their view.
_Matth._ xxiv. 9. Yet these men were commissioned to spread this Gospel
through the world, and had an express promise, that they should succeed
in their attempt. Against all appearance, the success followed. In less
than half a century, _the sound of the Gospel went out into all lands_;
and, within three centuries from the death of Christ, Christianity
ascended the imperial throne; _and had the utmost parts of the earth
for its possession_.

To encrease the wonder, this amazing revolution was brought about, by
_pacific methods only_; as was, likewise, foretold

2. In the LATTER of the _two_ prophecies, to which I before alluded.

Jesus himself quotes this prophecy from Isaiah in the following
words—_Behold, my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, in whom
my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall
shew judgment_, i. e. declare a new Law, _to the Gentiles. He shall
not strive, nor cry, neither shall any man hear his voice in the
streets; a bruised reed shall he not break, and smoaking flax shall
he not quench_, i. e. (as all interpreters explain these proverbial
expressions) he shall not employ the least degree of force or violence
in the propagation of this law, _till he send forth judgment unto
victory_, till it finally prevail against all opposition; _And in his
name shall the Gentiles trust_. Matth. xii. 18-21.

Let any man read the history of Christianity, from its first
publication in Judæa, to the conversion of Constantine, and then
see whether this prophecy hath not been exactly and illustriously
completed. The followers of Jesus were numerous enough, long before
the empire became Christian, to have attempted the way of force, had
it been permitted to them[108]: and the insults, the oppressions, the
persecutions, which they suffered from their Pagan enemies, were
enough to provoke the most passive tempers to some acts of hostility
and resistance[109]. But every one knows, that they had recourse to no
arms, but those of the spirit: they took no advantage of distracted
times, to raise commotions in behalf of the _new_ religion, or to
suppress the _old_ one: _a bruised reed did they not break, and
smoaking flax did they not quench_: yet with meekness, and patience,
and suffering; by piety, by reason, by the secret influence of a divine
blessing attending on these feeble efforts, the doctrine of the cross
insensibly gained ground, spread itself far and wide, and in the end
became _victorious_ over all the rage and power and sophistry of an
unbelieving world[110].

That this _victory_ hath not been, hitherto, so complete, as to answer
the promise of an _absolute universality_, we readily acknowledge; but
are in no pain for the event[111]; as the same oracles, which have thus
far been verified, suppose the present condition of things; and, what
is more, assure us of a time to come, when _the fulness of the Gentiles
shall come in_.

One word more, and I have done. If it be now thought, that these
THREE prophecies—_concerning the destruction of Jerusalem_—_the
dispersion of the Jews_—and _the call of the Gentiles_—have been
clearly accomplished; and yet were of that nature, that no human
foresight could deliver them, nor any probable conjuncture of human
affairs account for the accomplishment of them, you will conclude that
they were truly divine, and that we do not abuse your credulity in
alledging such prophecies, in proof of our holy religion. You will see
and acknowledge that there _are_ prophecies, recorded in scripture,
_concerning the Christian Church_; and that _these_ prophecies, in
particular, concerning it, have been remarkably fulfilled. Ye will,
therefore, the less wonder to find, that there are still _other_
prophecies, relative to the kingdom of Christ, as administered in
this world; and will, of course, be disposed to consider, with less
prejudice, what may further be said in support of them.




SERMON VII.

PROPHECIES CONCERNING ANTICHRIST.

1 EP. JOHN ii. 18.

—_Ye have heared that Antichrist shall come_—


Among the more remarkable prophecies concerning the Christian Church,
there are several, which describe the rise, progress, and downfal of
a certain Power, represented under various symbols or images, and
distinguished by many appellations; but more especially known by the
name of ANTICHRIST.

These prophecies come now, in the order of this Lecture, to be
considered. The subject is, in a high degree, curious and important;
but of no easy discussion: not so much on the account of any peculiar
difficulty in the prophecies themselves, as from the prejudice of party
in _explaining_ them, and still more, from the general prejudice that
lies against every _attempt_ to explain them.

To make my way through these obstructions, I shall begin with laying
before you a clear and distinct state of the question itself, which is
chiefly agitated by inquirers into these prophecies.

It is admitted, that many predictions in the Old and New Testament,
particularly in the book of Daniel, in St. Paul’s Epistles, and in the
Revelations of St. John, clearly point out a very extraordinary power,
which was to manifest itself _in the latter times_, that is, in the
times subsequent to the introduction of Christianity. The characters,
by which this power (acknowledged by all under the name of Antichrist)
is chiefly distinguished, are those of _Tyranny_[112], _Idolatry_, and
_Intolerance_. And, to abridge our trouble in searching after this
_three-headed_ monster, we are directed by the prophets to look for him
within the boundaries of what is properly called, the Roman Empire, and
even in the city of Rome itself.

Thus far there is no dispute. The only question is, To what Roman
power, exhibiting those characters, the prophecies are to be applied.
And even this question is reduced within narrow limits. For TWO Powers
only have subsisted in Rome, from the Christian æra to the present
times (within which period we are, again, allowed to expect the reign
of Antichrist); the Roman Emperor, in the first place; and, afterwards,
the Roman Pontifs. So that, on the whole, the single point in debate
is merely this, Whether Imperial, or Papal Rome, be that Antichristian
Power, which the prophets foretold. The church of Rome holds, for
obvious reasons, that the _Imperial_ power is the object of the
prophecies: the Protestants have, on the contrary, their reasons for
maintaining, that _Papal_ Rome is that power, which the prophecies had
in view, and in which alone they are truly and properly verified.

This, then, is the meaning of that famous inquiry concerning
Antichrist: and I must desire you to keep your attention steadily fixed
on the question, as here stated; while I endeavour to furnish you with
the proper means of deciding upon it.

The obvious method of doing this, would be, To lay before you,
directly, the prophecies themselves, and to examine them by the light
of sober criticism, and authentic history. But, because it is no
new or difficult thing to misrepresent _facts_, and to misinterpret
_scripture_, to pervert, in short, these two instruments of truth to
any ends, which prejudice hath in view; and because I know how natural
it is for you to suspect such management in the present case, where the
zeal of party is supposed, on either side, to exclude, or over-power,
the love of truth; for _these reasons_, it may be convenient to take
a larger compass, and, by a previous historical deduction of this
controversy, to let you see in what light it has been regarded, through
the several ages of the Christian Church.

I. THE FIRST ACCOUNT, we meet with in scripture, of the power in
question, I mean, under his proper name of _Antichrist_, is in the
first epistle of St. John, from which the text is taken. The whole
passage runs thus—_Little children, it is the last time: And, as
ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many
Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time_.

To understand these words, we must call to mind what hath been already,
more than once, observed concerning the scriptural division of time
into two great portions, The FORMER, and LATTER times. By the _former_,
is meant the times preceding the Christian æra; by the _latter_, the
times subsequent to it. Correspondent to this partition of time, is
the double advent of Christ, of which I before gave a distinct idea.
His _first_ advent was, when he came in the flesh, at Jerusalem: his
_second_ advent to be understood of his coming in his kingdom, through
all the ages of the Christian Church.

But though the _latter times_, in the general sense of scripture, be
thus comprehensive, they are further subdivided into other constituent
portions, in which some particular state of Christ’s kingdom is
administered, and within which it is completed. In reference to this
subordinate division of time in the Christian dispensation, the
_coming_ of Christ is, also, proportionably multiplied. He _comes_ in
each division; that is, as oft as he thinks fit to interpose by any
signal act of his power and providence. The whole period, in which any
distinct state of his kingdom is carrying on, is likewise called _the
latter time_; and the concluding part of that period is distinguished
by the name of the _last hour_: as if the whole of each period were
considered as _one day_; and the close of each period, as the end, or
_last hour_, of that day.

Thus, the time that elapsed from Christ’s ascension to the destruction
of Jerusalem, being one of the subdivisions, before mentioned, is
called the _latter times_; and the eve of its destruction, is called
the _last hour_. He _was coming_ through the whole time: he _came_
in the end of it. And the like use of these terms is to be made,
in other instances. We are to apply them in the same manner to the
_reign of Antichrist_—_to the Millennium_—to the _day of judgment_.
Each of these states, into which the _latter times_, or the times of
Christianity, are divided, is likewise spoken of under the idea of the
_latter times_; and the season, in which each is drawing to an end, is
the _last hour_ of that state[113].

Thus much being premised, it is easy to give a just exposition of the
text. _Little children, it is the last time_, or _hour_—that is, the
destruction of Jerusalem is at hand; as indeed it followed very soon
after the date of this Epistle. _And, as ye have heared that Antichrist
shall come_—that, in some future period, called the _last times_, an
hostile power, which we know by the name of Antichrist, shall arise and
prevail in the world, _even now_, we may see the commencement of that
power; for, _there are many Antichrists_; many persons, now, appear in
the spirit of that future Antichrist, and deserve his name: _whereby_,
indeed, _we know that it is the last hour_: for Christ himself had
made the appearance of false Christs and false prophets, that is, of
Antichrists, to be one of the signs by which that _hour_ should be
distinguished[114].

The meaning of the whole passage, then, is clearly this: “That the
appearance of _false Christs_ and _false Prophets_ (of which there were
many, according to our Lord’s prediction, in St. John’s time) indicated
the arrival of that _hour_, that was to be fatal to the Jewish state:
and that they were, at the same time, the types and forerunners of a
still more dreadful, power, which should be fully revealed in _the
latter times_, in a future period, when that calamity was past.” For
the truth of the assertion, That such a power should arise in the
Christian church, he appeals to a tradition, then current among the
disciples: and his hated name of _Antichrist_ is here applied, by way
of anticipation, to the false prophets of that time; as possessing much
of his character, and acting with his spirit.

Hence we see the meaning of the word, _Antichrist_; which stands for
a person or power, actuated with a spirit opposite to that of Christ.
And so indeed the Apostle explains himself, in another place of this
very Epistle. For, speaking of certain false teachers, who preached
up a doctrine, contrary to that of the Gospel, he adds—“This is
that _spirit_ of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should
come, and even now already is it in the world[115].” And I lay the
greater stress on this observation, because the etymology of the word,
_Antichrist_, makes it capable of two different meanings. For it may
either signify one, who _assumes the place and office of Christ_,
or one, who _maintains a direct enmity and opposition to him_[116].
But the _latter_, is the sense in which the Apostle useth this term;
although it be true that, in the _former_ sense, it very well suits the
Bishop of Rome, who calls himself the _Vicar_ of Christ, as well as the
successor of St. Peter. Nor can there be any difficulty in fixing the
charge of Antichristianism, in the sense of _an enmity and opposition
to Christ_, on the Roman Pontif (though I know how absurd the attempt
seems to the writers on that side); for, to merit this charge, it is
not necessary that he should formally reject Christ, which undoubtedly
he does not, but that he should act in defiance to the true genius and
character of Christ’s religion: a charge, which may be evidently made
good against him.

In short, as the word, _Christ_, is frequently used in the Apostolic
writings for the _doctrine_ of Christ; in which sense we are said
to _put on Christ_, to _grow in Christ_, to _learn Christ_, and in
other instances: So _Antichrist_, in the abstract, may be taken for a
doctrine subversive of the Christian; and when applied to a particular
man, or body of men, it denotes _one_, who sets himself against the
_spirit_ of that doctrine[117].

In this last sense, the word _Antichrist_ is clearly employed by St.
John: and from his example, the word grew into general use in the
Christian church; and is so to be understood, whenever mention is made
of Antichrist by the primitive fathers, or any other ecclesiastical
writers.

II. I am now to shew in what manner the prophecies concerning
_Antichrist_, or a person or power, so called, and, though variously
described, always considered under the idea of an adversary to the true
doctrine of Christ, have been construed and applied by many eminent
members of the Christian Church, in all ages.

1. When the canon of scripture was formed, and new in the hands of the
faithful, the prophecies concerning Antichrist were too remarkable not
to take their early attention. They accordingly cite these prophecies
in their apologies and commentaries, or refer to them, very frequently.
But one thing is singular. Though Antichrist be every where spoken of
in the prophecies as a persecuting power, and though the Christian
church then was, and so continued to be for near three centuries, in
a state of persecution under the Roman emperors, yet this opprobrious
name was not usually given to their persecutors. I do not say, that
none of the early Christian writers ever applied that character to the
Emperors. Some few of them, in a fit of zeal and resentment, did[118].
But the most, and the ablest of the Fathers, were clearly of another
opinion.

It may be thought, that they forbore this application of so odious a
term, out of respect to the government under which they lived, and
from prudential considerations. These motives had, without doubt,
their weight with them, and made them more cautious, than they would
otherwise have been, in interpreting the prophecies. But, if they had
been at liberty to speak out, and declare their full sense, on the
subject, it is certain they would not, and could not, consistently with
their avowed principles, apply the prophecies concerning Antichrist
to the Roman Emperors. For they had learned from tradition, and from
the letter of the prophecies, that Antichrist was to be revealed in
some distant age; and they even collected from a remarkable passage in
one of St. Paul’s Epistles (which will be considered hereafter) that
the removal of the Roman empire was to make way for his appearance.
Hence, they give it as a reason for their ardent prayers to Heaven for
the preservation of the empire, that the dreaded power of Antichrist
could not commence, so long as the Imperial sovereignty subsisted. And
it is observable that, of those few writers, who were in different
sentiments, the greater part conceived the time of his coming to be
_remote_; and were even driven to the strange necessity of supposing
that Nero, the first persecuting Emperor, was miraculously kept alive,
or would be raised up from the dead, in order to be revealed in a
future age, as the Antichrist of the prophets, or at least as the
_Precursor_ of Antichrist[119].

In short, the idea, which the early Christians, in general, formed
of Antichrist, was that of a power, to be revealed in distant times,
after the dissolution of the Roman empire; of a power, to arise out of
the ruins of that empire. Not to multiply quotations, on a point which
admits no doubt, Jerom, the ablest of the ancient Fathers, and the most
esteemed, shall speak for the rest. He says expressly, that such was
the idea of _all the ecclesiastical writers_, down to his time, as is
here represented[120].

Now this circumstance ye will surely think not a little remarkable,
that they, who lived under the emperors, and felt the whole weight
of their tyrannous persecution, should not apply the prophetic notes
and characters of Antichrist, to _them_, if indeed the prophecies had
been fairly capable of such application. This, I say, is exceedingly
remarkable: for men are but too apt even to wrest the scriptures to a
sense, which favours their own cause, or gratifies their passions; and
to find a completion of prophecy in events, which fall out in their own
days and concern themselves (as we see from so many absurd applications
of the Apocalypse, justly objected to certain Protestant writers);
though, when such events are past, and impartially considered, no such
accomplishment of prophecy can be discerned in them.

When the church of Rome, therefore, now pretends, that Antichrist is
to be sought in Imperial and Pagan Rome, ye will naturally ask how it
came to pass, that the ancient fathers, who had the best opportunity of
seeing the conformity of the prophecies with the transactions of their
times, and were so much interested in those transactions, should yet
overlook such conformity, if it had been real, and fairly marked out by
the prophecies, when interpreters of these days are so quick-sighted?
And to this question, no just and satisfactory answer can be given, but
that, in the opinion of those fathers, the characters of Antichrist
were not sufficiently applicable to the Roman emperors; or, if they
were, that certain express clauses in the prophecies themselves forbade
that application of them. Either way, their conduct forms a strong
presumption, that the Antichrist of the prophets was not, and could
not be, the Roman Emperor.

I know indeed, that, when the empire became Christian, and factions
sprang up in the church, the name of Antichrist, as a term of reproach,
was not unfrequently bestowed on such of the emperors as had made
themselves obnoxious to the orthodox party. But this flippancy of
language proves nothing but the passion of the men who indulged
themselves in it, unless it be, that this term of reproach was thought
better suited to an ecclesiastic, than a civil power: for the Emperor,
being now the head of the Christian church, his persecutions of
the faith were deemed the more _Antichristian_, as they especially
disgraced his _religious character_. And how natural this idea was,
I mean the idea of _Antichrist_, as intended by the prophets of a
_religious_, not civil power, we may learn from the history of the
schisms, which afterwards distracted the church under the papacy; when
the Antipopes very liberally, and constantly branded each other with
the name of _Antichrist_: as if they had found a peculiar aptness
in the prophetic language to express ecclesiastical tyranny and
usurpation.

But, whatever use we may make of these facts, it is clear, on all
hands, that the Roman Emperor, _as such_, was thought to have no
concern in the predictions concerning Antichrist; at least, that the
more intelligent Christian writers of the three first centuries had
no idea of his having any such concern in them: while, yet, they held
very unanimously, that some future power was to arise in the church, in
which those predictions would be completed.

III. This, in general, was the state of the controversy concerning
Antichrist, till the down-fall of the Western empire; when the Bishop
of Rome reared his head, and by degrees found means, amidst the ruins
of that mighty power, to advance himself into the sovereignty of Rome,
and, at length, of the Christian world: fixing his residence in the
very seat and throne of the Cæsars. It remains to see, in what light
the reign of Antichrist was, thenceforth, considered by many eminent
members of that church, which now called itself, and was, in a manner,
_universal_. In other words, we are to inquire, now that the imperial
power, which the fathers would not acknowledge to be Antichristian, had
deserted Rome, whether the papal power, which took its place on _the
seven hills_, did not, in the opinion of sober men, fill up all the
measures of the prophetic characters, and perfectly correspond to that
idea.

1. So early, as about the close of the sixth century, Gregory the
first, or, the _Great_, as he is usually called, the most revered, and
in some respects not undeservedly so, of all the Roman pontifs, in a
famous dispute with the Bishop of Constantinople, who had taken to
himself the title of _Oecumenical_, or Universal Bishop, objects to
him, the arrogance and presumption of this claim, and treats him, on
that account, as the fore-runner, at least, of Antichrist. His words
are remarkable enough to be here quoted. _I affirm it confidently_,
says He, _that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop, or is desirous
to be so called, demonstrates himself, by this pride and elation of
heart, to be the fore-runner of Antichrist_[121]. And, again, _From
this presumption of his_ [in taking the name of Universal Bishop] _what
else can be collected, but that the times of Antichrist are now at
hand_[122]?

It is to be observed of this Gregory, that he disclaimed, for himself,
the title of Universal Bishop, as well as refused it to his aspiring
brother of Constantinople. How consistently he did this, when at the
same time, he exercised an authority, which can only belong to that
exalted character, it is not my business to inquire. Perhaps, he did
not advert to the consequence of his own actions: perhaps, like an able
man, he meant to secure the thing, without troubling himself about the
name: perhaps, he was jealous of a rival to this claim of catholic
authority, and would not permit the Bishop of Constantinople to
decorate himself with a title, which was likely to be favourable to the
pretensions of that see, and injurious to his own. Whatever the reasons
of his conduct were, the _fact_ is, as I here represent it; and clearly
shews that, in the judgment of this renowned Roman Bishop, Antichrist
had not yet been revealed in the person of the Roman Emperor; and if
ever he were to be revealed, that not a civil, but ecclesiastical
character, agreed best with the prophetic descriptions of him[123].

2. Pope Boniface III. had not, it seems, the scruples, whatever they
were, of his predecessor, Gregory. He readily accepted, or rather
importunately begged, this proud title of _Oecumenical Bishop_, from
the Emperor, Phocas; and transmitted it to all his successors. And now,
it might be expected, that the Bishop of Rome would be Antichrist, in
his turn. But, such was the fortune of that see, or the devotion of the
faithful to it, that this charge was not presently brought against him:
as if the spirit of dominion, which had so long possessed that city,
were a thing of course, and could not misbecome the Bishop of Rome,
though it looked so _Antichristian_ in him of Constantinople.

Other reasons concurred to save the honour of the papal chair. Its
authority grew, every day, more absolute: and the tradition of the
church (which had hitherto been the chief support of the doctrine
concerning Antichrist) gradually sunk under the apprehension of that
power, to which alone it could, with any apparent propriety, be
applied: while the ignorance of the times became such, that, except
perhaps in the minds of some few retainers to the see of Rome, there
was scarce light enough left in the Christian world to point out
the meaning of the prophecies; if its gross superstition would have
otherwise permitted the application of them to the sacred person of the
Pope.

3. Under the cover of all these advantages, _the Man of Sin_ had
a convenient time to display himself, and to grow up into that
full size and stature, in which he could no longer be overlooked,
or mistaken, by those who had any knowledge of the prophecies, or
skill in applying them. Accordingly we find that at the synod of
Rheims, held in the Xth century[124], Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans,
appealed to the whole council, whether the Bishop of Rome were not
the Antichrist of the prophets; _sitting in the temple of God_; and
perfectly corresponding to the marks, which St. Paul had given of
him. In particular, speaking of John the XVth, who then governed the
church of Rome, he apostrophized the assembly in these words—“What
think ye, reverend Fathers, of this man, seated on a lofty throne, and
shining in purple and gold? Whom do ye account him to be? Surely, if
destitute of charity, and puffed up with the pride of science only, He
is ANTICHRIST, _sitting in the temple of God, and shewing himself that
he is God_[125].”

4. In the former part of the XIth century, Berengarius, a man of
principal note in those days, and distinguished by his free writings
concerning the Eucharist, went so far as to call the church of
Rome, _the seat of Satan_ (which is but another apocalyptic name of
Antichrist); and to know from what source he derived this language,
we need only reflect, that, in the catalogue of his works, we find a
treatise written by him expressly on the book of Revelations[126].

As this century advanced, the papal power rose to its height. And
all the characters of Antichrist glared so strongly in the person
of Hildebrand, who took the name of Gregory VIIth, that the Romish
historian, Joannes Aventinus, speaks of it as a point, _in which the
generality of fair, candid, and ingenuous writers, were agreed, That_
THEN _began the empire of Antichrist_[127].

5. Pascal II, who had been brought up at the feet of Hildebrand, and
sate upon the papal throne in the beginning of the XIIth century, was
treated with as little ceremony, as his master had been; particularly,
by Fluentius, Bishop of Florence, and by the whole church of Liege[128].

St. Bernard, too, the most eminent person of that age, was so struck
with the marks of Antichristianism in the church of Rome (to which,
however, in other respects, he was enough devoted) that he employed all
the thunder of his rhetoric (in which faculty he excelled) against its
corruptions; exclaiming, _that the ministers of Christ were become the
servants of Antichrist; and that the beast of the Apocalypse had seated
himself in the chair of St. Peter_[129].

But this charge was now so general, and sounded so high, that it
reached the ears of _others_, besides prelates, and churchmen.
Historians relate, that it made an impression on our military king,
Richard I.; who, being at Messina in Sicily, in his way to the Holy
Land, and hearing much of the learned Abbot Joachim of Calabria, (a
man, famous in those times for his warm invectives against the Roman
hierarchy;) had the curiosity to take a lecture from him on this
subject. His text was, _Antichrist_, and the _Apocalypse_; which he
explained in so pointed and forcible a manner, as was much to the
satisfaction, we are told, of his royal auditor[130].

6. The first appearance of the people, called Waldenses or Albigenses,
was in this age; but, in the next, the XIIIth century, they prevailed
to that degree, that Crusades and Inquisitions were thought little
enough to be employed against them. We may know what the guilt of this
people was, when we understand from their books, and from the testimony
of the great historian, Thuanus, that a leading principle of their
heresy was, To treat the Pope as _Antichrist_; and the church of Rome,
as _Babylon_; on the authority of the prophecies contained in the
Revelation[131].

Other[132] testimonies occur in the history of this age. But I must
not omit that of our famous historian, Matthew Paris; who hath taken
care to inform us, that his contemporary, Robert Grostête, Bishop of
Lincoln, the most considerable of all the English bishops, and equally
renowned for his affection to civil and religious liberty, was so much
in earnest in fixing this charge on the see of Rome, that, as it had
been the common theme of his meditations during life, so it occupied
his dying moments; the _Pope_, and _Antichrist_, being, as he tells us,
among the last words of this zealous prelate[133].

7. The XIVth century affords many authorities in point; among which the
immortal names of Dante[134] and Petrarch[135] are commonly cited.
But the example of our Wicklif, who adorned that age, is most to our
purpose, and may excuse the mention of any other. This extraordinary
man saw far into all the abuses of his time: but he had nothing more at
heart, than to expose the _Antichristianism_ of the Roman Pontif[136].

8. Still, as the times grew more enlightened, the controversy
concerning Antichrist became more general and important. The writings
of Wicklif had great effects both at home, and abroad; and, with other
causes, contributed very much to the cultivation of free enquiry, and
to the improvement of all useful knowledge, in the XVth century. The
church of Rome was pushed vigorously on all sides; and, in her turn,
omitted no means of self-defence. That the _worst_ were not scrupled,
may be seen by what passed in England at that time, as well as by the
sanguinary and faithless proceedings at the council of Constance. Lord
Cobham, and the two Bohemian martyrs, were committed to the flames, for
nothing so much, as for asserting the impious doctrine, ‘That the Pope
was Antichrist.’

9. We now enter on the XVIth century; distinguished in the annals of
mankind by that great event, The Reformation of long oppressed and much
adulterated religion. The Christian world had slumbered in its chains,
for full ten ages. But Liberty came at last—

    _Libertas, quæ sera tamen respexit_ INERTEM.

This important work was begun, and prosecuted, on the common principle,
That the bishop of Rome was Antichrist: and the great separation from
the church of Rome, was every where justified on the idea, That Rome
was the Babylon of the Revelation; and that Christians were bound by an
express command in those prophecies, to _come out of her_ communion.

Leo X. was thunder-struck with this cry, which resounded on all sides;
and, in the last Lateran council, gave it in charge to all preachers,
that none of them should presume to call the Pope, Antichrist, or to
treat this obnoxious subject in their discourses to the people[137].
But his edict came too late. The notion had taken deep root in the
minds of men; and the name of Antichrist, as applied to the Pope, was
current in all quarters.

10. From this time to the present, _the charge of Antichristianism_
against the church of Rome is to be regarded, not as the language of
private men, or particular synods; but as the common voice of the whole
Protestant world: so that it will be needless to bring down the history
of it any lower.

THIS DEDUCTION, though made with all possible brevity, hath held us so
long, that I have but time for one or two short reflexions upon it.

1. _First_, It may seem probable from the general prevalence of this
opinion, in all the periods of the Christian church, that it must needs
have some solid ground in the scriptural prophecies: it not being
otherwise conceivable, that it should spread so far, and continue so
long; or that the more enlightened, as well as barbarous ages should
concur in the profession of it.

2. _Secondly_, from the catalogue of illustrious names, here produced,
and from the singular stress, which all Protestant churches to this
day have ever laid on this principle, we may see the importance of the
general question. The papal divines have an evident reason for treating
it with contempt. The men of thought and inquiry, who speculate within
the Roman communion, may be restrained by considerations of fear or
decency, from joining[138] in this invidious charge against the head
of their church. But for any, that profess Christianity, and call
themselves Protestants, to make light of inquiries into the prophecies
concerning Antichrist, and to manifest a scorn of all attempts to apply
them in the way, in which they have so generally, and with such effect
been applied, is a sort of conduct, which will not so readily find an
excuse, much less a justification.

3. _Lastly_, whatever becomes of the _truth_, or _importance_ of the
doctrine, the _antiquity_ of it is not to be disputed. For we are
authorised to affirm, on the most certain grounds of history, that a
Roman power, commonly called Antichrist, was expected to arise in _the
latter times_, by the primitive Christians; and that the Imperial, was
not deemed to be that power, so long as it subsisted. It is, further,
unquestionable that not the Emperor, but the Bishop or Church of Rome,
was afterwards thought entitled to the name of Antichrist by many
persons of that communion, for several successive centuries, previous
to the æra of the Reformation.

These facts should abate the wonder, at least, which some express at
hearing the names of the _Pope_ and _Antichrist_ pronounced together.
They must surely convince every man, that this language, whatever
foundation it may, or may not have, in the prophecies, is not taken
up without precedents and authorities; and that the notion, conveyed
by it, is not a conceit of yesterday, which sprung out of recent
prejudices, and novel interpretations. This, I say, is a conclusion
which every man must draw from the premises, laid down in this
discourse: and this, for the present, is the main use I would request
you to make of those premises.




SERMON VIII.

PREJUDICES AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF ANTICHRIST.

1 EP. JOHN ii. 18.

—_Ye have heared that Antichrist shall come_—


One of the principal prejudices against the doctrine of Antichrist,
as understood and applied by Protestant divines, arises out of a
circumstance, which was just touched in the close of my last discourse,
and is of importance enough to be now resumed and more particularly
considered.

I. It is well known that, when the Reformation was set on foot in the
sixteenth century, this great work was every where justified and
conducted on the general principle, “That the Pope, or at least the
church of Rome, was Antichrist.”

“Now men of sense, who have looked no farther into the subject, and yet
remember, as they easily may, the bitterness, the policy, the fraud,
too commonly observable in the conduct of religious (as of other)
parties, easily fall into the suspicion, That this cry of Antichrist
was only an artifice of the time, or at least an extravagance of it;
when the minds of men were intensely heated against each other, and
when of course no arms would be refused, that might serve to annoy or
distress the enemy.

In these circumstances, it was natural enough, it will be said, for
angry men to _see_ that in the prophecies which was not contained in
them; or for designing men to _feign_ that which they did not see; in
order the more effectually to carry on the cause in which they had
embarked, and to seduce the unwary multitude into their quarrel. In
short, the passions of the Reformed, it is readily presumed, had, some
way or other, conjured up this spectre of Antichrist, as a convenient
engine, by which they might either gratify their own spleen, or excite
that of the people; the prophecies all the while being no further
concerned in the question, than as they were wrested for these purposes
(as they frequently have been, in like cases) from their true and
proper meaning.”

To remove this capital prejudice (which, more than any other, hath,
perhaps, diverted serious men from giving a due attention to this
argument) was the main purpose of the preceding discourse; in which
it was clearly shewn from historical testimony, that the question
concerning Antichrist had its rise in the earliest times; that the
prophecies concerning Antichrist, though imperfectly enough understood,
and, it may be, passionately applied, had yet, been considered,
very generally, as referring to _some_ corrupt Christian and even
ecclesiastical person or power; and that many eminent members of the
Christian church had even applied those prophecies to the _same_ person
or power, to which Protestants now apply them, and for the _same_ end,
which Protestants have in view, when they apply them to such person or
power, for many successive centuries, before the Reformation began.
From all which it is undeniable, that the Reformers did not innovate in
the interpretation of the prophecies concerning Antichrist; and that
their application of them to the see of Rome, was not a contrivance,
which sprung out of the passionate resentments, or interested policies
of that time.

It is true indeed (for the truth should not, and needs not be
concealed) that the Reformers were forward enough to lay hold on this
received sense of the prophecies, and to make their utmost advantage of
it; the account of which matter is, briefly, this: The Christian church
had now for many ages been held together in a close dependence on the
chair of St. Peter; and to secure and perpetuate that dependence, was
the principal object and concern of the papal court. Various means
were employed for this purpose; but the most effectual was thought to
be, to inculcate in the strongest terms on the minds of Christians the
absolute necessity of communicating with the Bishop of Rome, as the
centre of unity, and, by divine appointment, the supreme visible head
of the Christian world. Hence, to renounce in any degree the authority
and jurisdiction of Rome, was deemed the most inexpiable of all sins.
The name of SCHISM was fastened upon it; a name, which was sounded
higher than that of Heresy itself, as implying in it the accumulated
guilt of Apostacy, and Infidelity. The way of heaven was shut against
all offenders of this sort; and, to make their condition as miserable,
as it was hopeless, all the engines of persecution, such as racks,
fires, gibbets, inquisitions, and even Crusades, had been employed
against them: as was seen in the case of the Albigenses and others,
who, at different times, had attempted to withdraw themselves from the
papal dominion.

Such was the state of things, when the bold spirit of Luther resolved,
at all adventures, to break through this inveterate servitude[139], so
dextrously imposed on the Christian world, under the pretence, and in
the name, of ecclesiastical union. Yet the peril of the attempt was
easily foreseen, or was presently felt. And, therefore, the Reformers
(to prevent the ill effects which the dreadful name of _Schism_ might
have on themselves and their cause, and to satisfy at once their own
consciences and those of their adherents) not only revived and enforced
the old charge of _Antichristianism_ against the church of Rome; but
further insisted (on the authority of those prophecies which justified
the charge) that Christians were bound in conscience, by the most
express command, to break all communion with her. The expedient, one
sees, was well calculated to serve the purpose in hand: but still
the command was truly and pertinently alledged; for it exists in so
many words (however the blindness or the bigotry of former times had
overlooked it) in the book of the _Revelations_[140]. So that whoever
admitted the _charge_ itself to be well founded, could not reject this
_consequence_ of it, That Christ and Antichrist had no fellowship
with each other. And on this popular ground, chiefly, the Protestant
cause, in those early times, was upheld; with no small advantage to the
patrons of it; it being now clear, that the invidious imputation of
Schism had lost its malignity in the general obligation, which lay upon
Christians, to renounce all communion with the church of Rome.

This being the true account of that zeal, with which the doctrine of
Antichrist was asserted in the days of Reformation, let us see how
the case stands at present; and whether any reasonable prejudice lies
against the doctrine itself, from the uses, that were then so happily
made of it.

In the first place, The injunction, _to come out of her_, was, as I
observed, not forged by the Reformers; nor (admitting that church
to be Antichristian) was it misrepresented by them. Every reader of
the prophecies must confess, that the command is clearly delivered,
and that the sense of it is not mistaken. How serviceable soever,
therefore, this topic was to the cause of reformation, it is not, on
that account, to be the less esteemed by the just and candid inquirer.

In the next place, I will freely admit, that the dread, in which most
men, if not all men[141], of that time, were held, of incurring the
imputation of Schism, was much greater, than the occasion required,
and, upon the whole, a sort of panic terror. For, though a causeless
separation from the church would indeed have loaded the Reformers with
much and real guilt, yet when the abuses of it had risen to that height
as to reduce an honest man to the alternative, either of committing
sin, or of leaving its communion, they might well have justified
themselves on the evident necessity of the thing, and had no need of
a positive command to authorize their separation. All this is, now,
clearly seen; and if the first Reformers did not see thus much (as
very probably they did not) all that follows is, That the doctrine
of Antichrist, from which that command derived its effect, was less
necessary to their cause, than they supposed it to be; not, that the
doctrine itself is without authority, or the command without obligation.

Lastly, I observe, that, though the _violences_ of the time might
force the Reformers to take shelter in this doctrine of Antichrist,
and though the _prejudices_ of the time might induce them to take
the advantage, they did, of it; yet, neither of these considerations
affords any just presumption against the doctrine, as it lies in
scripture, and is enforced by us at this time out of it; because we
argue, not from their authority, but from the prophecies themselves;
which are much better understood by us, than they were by them; and
are still maintained to speak the sense, which they put upon them, I
mean with respect to the general application of them to the church of
Rome, though we have nothing to apprehend either from the power of that
church, or from the prejudices of the people.

Let no man, therefore, rashly conclude, from the free use made of this
doctrine by our old Reformers (and there is scarce one of them that has
not left behind him a tract or discourse on Antichrist) that it hath
no better or other foundation, than in their interests or passions. A
reasonable man sees, that it has no dependance at all upon them. That
Luther, indeed, heated in the controversy with the church of Rome, and
smoaking, as I may say, from the recent blast of the papal thunders,
should cry out, ANTICHRIST[142], shall pass, if you will, for a sally
of rage and desperation[143]. But that we, at this day, who revolve the
prophecies at our ease, and are in little more dread of modern Rome,
than of ancient Babylon, should still find the resemblance so striking
as to fall upon the same idea; and should even be driven against the
strong bias of prejudice (which with us, in England, for above a
century past, has drawn the other way) to adopt the language of our
great Reformer; this, I say, is a consideration of another sort, and
will not be put off so slightly.

STILL, there are other prejudices, which oppose themselves to this
great Protestant principle, _That the Pope is Antichrist_; and these,
it will not be beside the purpose of this Lecture to consider. It may,
then, be said,

II. “That, although there be not the same evident necessity for
bringing this odious charge against the Papacy, as there was formerly
in the infancy of Reformation, yet obvious reasons are not wanting,
which may possibly induce the Protestant churches of our times to
repeat and inforce it. So long as the separation is kept up, the
partizans of the cause will not scruple to lay hold on every popular
topic, by which it may be promoted. But an _ill name_, is the readiest
of all expedients, and generally the most effectual, for this service.
And as _Heretic_ is the term in use, when the church of Rome would
discredit the Reformation; so, _Antichrist_ serves just as well, in
the mouth of a Protestant, to disgrace the Catholic party. Hence, the
people are gratified in a low spite against the person of the Pope; the
better sort are confirmed in their religious or politic aversion to the
church of Rome; and Princes themselves are invited to come in aid of
the prophecies, by turning their arms and councils against a godless
antichristian tyranny: and all this, to the ruin of public peace, and
in defiance of Christian charity.”

When men declaim, instead of arguing, or, what is worse, when they
argue from their suspicions only, it may not be easy to give them an
answer to their satisfaction. Otherwise, one might reply,

_First_, That the question is not, what use has been, or may be, made
of this doctrine concerning Antichrist; but whether there be reason to
believe that such doctrine is really contained in sacred scripture. If
there be, it will become us to treat it with respect, how much soever
it may have been misapplied, or perverted.

In the _next place_, one might observe that no man, who understood
the state of this controversy, ever applied the prophecies concerning
Antichrist to the _person_ of the Pope, but in general to the church of
Rome, or rather to the Antichristian spirit, by which it is governed;
or, if to the _Pope_, to him only as representing that society, of
which he is the head; and so far only, as he acted in the spirit of it.
And there is nothing strange or unusual in this use of the term. When
Hobbes wrote his famous book, called LEVIATHAN (a word, now at least,
of almost as ill sound, as Antichrist itself) no man supposes, that
he meant to apply this character, exclusively, to the person of any
prince, then living; but, in general, to _civil government_, according
to the ideas he had formed of it. And this way of speaking, as I have
before observed, is especially familiar to the sacred writers. Many
of the Popes are said to have been, and, for any thing I know, _may_
have been, _Saints_, in their private morals: so that when we apply
the term, Antichrist, to them, we do not mean to stigmatize their
_persons_, but merely to express the sense which the prophecies lead
us to entertain of the communion, over which they preside; though
they may not exemplify in their own conduct, or not in any remarkable
degree, the avowed principles of that communion.

Conceive, therefore, with more respect of Protestant divines, when they
explain and vindicate the prophecies concerning Antichrist, than to
suppose, that they indulge in themselves, or would encourage in others,
_a low spite against the person of the Roman Pontif_.

_Thirdly_, It is to be observed, that, although this prophetic language
may tend to confirm Protestants _in a religious, or_, if you will,
_politic aversion to the church of Rome_; yet it is not therefore to
be forborn, if the scriptures do, indeed, authorize the use of it;
nor is there any hurt done, if the principles of that church be not
misrepresented; for then, such aversion becomes the wisdom and the
duty of all Christians. Besides, this aversion proceeds no farther
in well-informed Protestants, than to keep them at distance from the
Romish communion, and to admonish others of their obligation to forsake
it. And, if the members, above all, if the rulers, of that communion
would restrain _their_ zeal within the same bounds (though they would
not, we say, be equally justified in this zeal) neither public peace,
nor Christian charity, would suffer by it.

_Lastly_, it should be remembered, That, when the prophecies foretell
the downfall of Antichrist, and even go so far as to point out to us
the princes of that communion, as the destined instruments of such
catastrophe; yet neither is hereby any duty imposed on those princes
to make war upon the Pope, nor any encouragement given to Protestants
themselves to concur in any such measures. For the prophets simply
predict an _event_; and do not deliver in their prediction, or propose
to deliver, _rules_ for our conduct. Our Saviour himself, speaking
by the spirit, and in the language of prophecy, said—_I come not to
send peace on earth, but a sword_. But will any man suppose that this
prediction justifies, or was meant in any degree to justify, that state
of things, which it describes, and which the author of it foresaw
would too certainly come to pass? Nor think, that the event predicted,
I mean, _the fall of Antichrist_, will not take place, unless our
invectives, or hostile attempts, make way for it. If the prediction be
divine, there is ONE, who will see that it be accomplished. Princes and
States may have nothing less in view than to fulfill the prophecies
of sacred Scripture: yet, when the appointed time is come, they will
certainly fulfill them, though they never thought _of coming in aid
of the prophecies_—though we should not encourage them in any such
presumptuous design—nay, though we should do our utmost, as it is our
duty to do, to restrain vindictive and ill-advised men from turning
their arms even against Antichrist himself, for the sake of religion.

This topic, I know, is much laboured by the advocates of the papal
cause, in order to throw disgrace on Protestant writers, whom they
consider as so many incendiaries, wickedly attempting to spread the
flames of war through Christian societies. There might be a time
when, in the case of some few men, transported by passion, because
outrageously oppressed, there was, perhaps, some colour for this
charge. But to persist in it, as they still do, only shews that they
neither conceive with due reverence of divine prophecy, nor do justice
to that spirit of toleration by which the Protestant churches, at least
of our days, are so eminently distinguished.

III. “A _third_ prejudice, which operates in the minds of many persons
against the principle under consideration, arises from the disagreeing
opinions of learned men concerning the sense and application of the
prophecies; while not only the papal Divines, but many writers of note
even among ourselves, have strenuously maintained that the church of
Rome is no way concerned in the predictions concerning Antichrist.”

To this prejudice, I observe,

1. That arguments from authority, in all cases where reason and good
sense must finally decide, are very little to be regarded. Shew me the
question in religion, or even in common morals, about which learned men
have not disagreed; nay, shew me a single text of scripture, though
ever so plain and precise, which the perverseness or ingenuity of
interpreters has not drawn into different, and often contrary meanings.
What then shall we conclude? That there is no truth in religion,
no certainty in morals, no authority in sacred scripture? If such
conclusions, as these, be carried to their utmost length, in what else
can they terminate, but absolute universal scepticism?

2. I observe that this authority, after all, whatever weight we may,
in the general, suppose it to have, is, in the present case, no great
matter; for it is, in effect, but the authority of ONE man, whose
eminent worth, however, and lustre of reputation, made it current with
some others.

The character of HUGO GROTIUS is well known. He is justly esteemed
among the ablest and most learned men of an age, that abounded
in ability and learning. Besides his other shining talents, his
acquaintance with history was extensive; and his knowledge of
scripture, profound. And yet, with two such requisites for unlocking
the true sense of the prophetic writings, this excellent man undertook
to prove in form, _That the Pope was not Antichrist_.

The account of this mischance, is as extraordinary, as the mischance
itself. The moral qualities of Grotius were still more admirable, than
his intellectual: and in these qualities, we shall find the true spring
of his unhappy and misapplied pains on the subject before us.

He was in his own nature just, candid, benevolent, to a supreme degree;
and the experience of an active turbulent life had but fortified him
the more in a love of these pacific virtues. He was, on principle, a
sincere and zealous Christian; and consequently impressed with a due
sense of that exalted charity, which is the characteristic of that
religion: but he had seen and felt much of the mischiefs, which proceed
from theological quarrels: and thus every thing concurred to make him a
friend to peace, and, above all, to peace among Christians.

An union of the Catholic and Protestant churches seemed necessary
to this end: and the apparent candour, whether real or affected,
of some learned persons, whom he had long known and valued in the
church of Rome, drew him into the belief, that such a project was not
impracticable. Henceforth, it became the ruling object of his life;
and, permitting himself too easily to conclude, that the Protestant
doctrine of Antichrist was the sole, or principal obstruction to the
union desired, he bent all the efforts of his wit and learning to
discredit and overthrow that doctrine.

Thus, was this virtuous man betrayed by the wisdom and equity of his
own character; and I know not if the observation of the moral poet can
be so justly applied to any other—

    Insani sapiens nomen ferat, æquus iniqui,
    Ultrà quàm satis est, virtutem si petat ipsam[144].

The issue of his general scheme was what might easily be foreseen: and
of his _arguments_, I shall only say thus much, That the Romish writers
themselves, for whose use they might seem to be invented, though they
continue to object his name to us, are too wise to venture the stress
of their cause upon them.

To conclude this head of authority, let me just observe,

3. In the last place, that, if any regard be due to it, the advantage
will clearly be on our side. For, though the name of Grotius made
an impression on some Protestant interpreters of scripture, not
inconsiderable for their parts and learning, yet, when the grounds of
his opinion came to be examined, the most and the ablest of them have
generally declared against him: and among these, let it be no offence
to the manes of this great[145] man, if we particularly mention TWO,
and prefer even to his authority that of Newton and Clarke; the one,
the ablest philosopher, and the other, the coolest and most rational
divine, that any age has produced.

IV. “Another, and _fourth_ prejudice may have been entertained on this
subject from observing that many curious persons, who have employed
themselves much and long in the study of the prophecies, especially of
those concerning Antichrist, have been led (on their authority, as they
pretend) to fix the time and other circumstances of great events, which
yet have not fallen out agreeable to their expectations. Whence it is
inferred, that no solid information can be derived from the prophecies,
and that all our reasonings upon them are no better than fancy and
conjecture.”

Now, though the indiscretion of these curious persons, who would needs
prophecy when their business was only to interpret[146], be injurious
enough to their own character, I do not see how it affects that of
the prophets; unless whatever may be abused (as every thing may) be
answerable for the abuses made of it. But to reply more directly to
this charge.

The ill success of men in explaining prophecies of events, not yet come
to pass, can in no degree discredit those prophecies, unless it be
essential to this sort of revelation to be so clearly proposed, as that
it may and must be perfectly understood, before those events happen;
the contrary of which I have already shewn, in a preceding discourse.
The very idea of prophecy is that of _a light shining in a dark
place_: and a place is not _dark_, if we have light enough to discern
distinctly and fully every remote corner of it. But the thing speaks
itself. For to what end is the prediction delivered in obscure and
enigmatic terms, if the purpose of the inspirer was that the subject
of the prediction should be immediately, and in all its circumstances,
precisely apprehended? Why, then, is any distinction made between
Prophecy, and History? The mode of writing clearly demonstrates, that
something, for a time at least, was meant to be concealed from us: and
then, if men will attempt, out of season, to penetrate this mystery,
what wonder if mistake be the fruit of their presumption?

Again: the _declared_ end of prophecy is, not that we may be enabled
by it to foresee things before they come to pass, but _when_ they
come to pass, that we may acknowledge the divine author of the
prophecy[147]. What dishonour, then, can it be to the prophet, that he
is not perfectly understood, till we be expected to make use of his
information? Nay, in the case before us, it would dishonour him, if
he was. For, of the prophecies concerning Antichrist we are expressly
told, that they are _shut up and sealed, till the time of the end_;
that is, till Time brings the key along with him. So that, if men
could open them, by their own wit and sagacity only, they would give
the lye to the prophet. And thus we see, that the very mistakes of
interpreters attempting prematurely to unfold the _sealed_ prophecies
concerning Antichrist, far from subverting, support the credit of
those prophecies[148].

But I have something more to say on this subject. Though we cannot see
every thing in the prophecies, which we are impatient to see, it is
not to be supposed that we can see nothing in them. If this were the
case, we should scarce regard them as prophecies at all; at least, we
should hardly be prevailed upon to read and consider them. For, it is
on the supposition that some _light_ is communicated to us, that we are
disposed, as well as required, to _take heed to it_. In short, if we
saw nothing, we should expect nothing: such prophecies would not engage
our curiosity, or so much as take our attention. In one word, they
would be utterly lost upon us.

This seems to have been, in some measure, the case with regard to this
very book of the _Revelations_. The early Christians saw so little
in this prophecy, that they were led by degrees to neglect the study
of it. Otherwise, the little they did see, might have given them a
glimpse, at least, of many things, that intimately concerned both their
faith and conduct.

It being then necessary, as I said, that prophecy should, from the
first, convey some light to us, and time having now very much increased
that light, it follows, that men may excuseably employ themselves
in studying and contemplating even unfulfilled prophecies. They may
conjecture modestly of points which time has not yet revealed: but they
should, in no case, pronounce confidently, or decide dogmatically upon
them.

It seems therefore to be going too far, to pass an indiscriminate
censure on all those, who have proposed their thoughts on the sense
of prophecies, not yet completed, though it be ever so clear that a
wrong construction has been made of them. Nay, it is worth considering
whether they may not even have conjectured right, when they have
been thought to mistake the most widely. I say this, chiefly, with
regard to the _time_, which some writers have beforehand assigned for
the accomplishment of certain prophecies, and that, on principles
apparently contained in those prophecies; but so unhappily, as to draw
much scorn and ridicule upon themselves.

I explain myself by a famous instance. Nothing has been more censured
in Protestant divines, than their temerity in fixing _the fall
of Antichrist_; though there are certain data in the prophecies,
from which very probable conclusions on that subject may be drawn.
Experience, it is said, contradicts their calculation. But it is not
considered, that the fall of Antichrist, is not _a single event_,
to happen all at once; but _a state of things_, to continue through
a long tract of time, and to be gradually accomplished. Hence, the
interpretation of the prophecy might be rightly formed, though the
expectations of most men are disappointed.

It is visible, I suppose, that the papal power (if we agree to call
that, _Antichrist_) is now on the decline; whensoever that declension
began, or how long soever it may be, before it will be finished. And
therefore interpreters may have aimed right, though they seemed to
others, and perhaps to themselves, to be mistaken.

Suppose, the ruin of the Western Empire had been the subject of a
prediction, and some had collected, beforehand, from the terms of
the prophecy, that it would happen at a _particular_ time; when yet
nothing more, in fact, came to pass, than _the first irruption of
the barbarous nations_. Would it be certain that this collection was
groundless and ill made, because the empire subsisted in a good degree
of vigour for some centuries after? Might it not be said, that the
empire _was falling_[149] from that æra, or perhaps before; though, in
the event, it _fell_ not, till its sovereignty was shaken by the rude
hands of Attila, or rather, till it was laid flat by the well-directed
force of Theodoric?

But we have an instance in point, recorded in sacred scripture. It had
been gathered from the old prophecies[150], that, _in the last times_,
(that is, when the Messiah was come) _a new earth and new heavens
should be created_. The style is symbolical; but the meaning is, and
was so understood to be, that a new Law should be given to mankind and
prevail over the whole world. This Law was accordingly promulged and
began to prevail in the days of the Apostles. Yet there were some who
said, _Where is the promise of his coming? for, since the fathers fell
asleep, all things continue, as they were from the creation of the
world._ It was taken for granted, we see, that this great and glorious
work, equivalent to the production of a new world, would take place
suddenly and at once; which not being the case, it seemed to follow,
that the prophecies were false, or at least ill understood: when yet,
surely, they were then fulfilling under the eyes of these _scoffers_.

It will be considered, how far these hints may go towards rescuing
some respectable interpreters (for I speak only of such) from
that contempt, which has fallen upon them, and, from them, on the
prophecies themselves, for some hazardous conclusions, or, (if you
will) predictions, formed and given out by them, concerning the reign
and fall of Antichrist. My meaning, however, is not to make myself
responsible for these conclusions. They may not be rightly drawn
from the premises, laid down; or the premises may be such, that the
precise date of those transactions cannot be determined from them, at
least, not, till the scene of prophecy be closed, or, in the prophetic
language, _till the mystery of God be finished_[151]. In the mean
time, it is not clear and undeniable that there is no ground at all
for such conjectures: or, if it were, it would only follow that they,
who made them, had been rash and indiscreet in commenting too minutely
and confidently on prophecies unfulfilled; and it would be weak, as we
have seen, to contract a prejudice against the subject itself from the
mistakes of such commentators.

V. After all, the main and master prejudice, I doubt, is, that levity
of mind which disposes too many to take their notions on this, and
other subjects of moment, from certain polite and popular, it may be,
but frivolous and libertine writers: men, who have no religion, or not
enough to venerate the prophetic scriptures; who have no knowledge, or
certainly not enough to understand them.

But with such cavillers, as these, I have no concern; this Lecture,
and the subject of it, being addressed to men of another character,
to fair, candid, sober, and enlightened inquirers, only: For so
the inspired person, who first announced these wonders concerning
Antichrist, to mankind, expressly declares, or rather prophesies—_None
of the wicked shall understand: but_ THE WISE _shall understand_[152].




SERMON IX.

THE PROPHETIC STYLE CONSIDERED.

EZEKIEL xx. 49.

—_They say of me, Doth he not speak Parables?_


In recounting the various prejudices, which have diverted many persons
from giving a due attention to the prophecies concerning Antichrist, I
may be thought to have overlooked ONE of the most considerable; which
ariseth from _the peculiar style, in which they are delivered_. But
this being a subject of larger compass, and nicer inquiry, than the
rest, (in which, too, the credit of all the prophetic scriptures, as
well as those respecting Antichrist, is concerned) I have purposely
reserved it for a distinct and separate examination.

WITHOUT DOUBT, a plain man, brought up in our customs and notions, and
unacquainted with theological studies, when he first turns himself
to the contemplation of the Jewish and Christian prophecies, will be
surprised, perhaps disgusted, to find, that he understands little, or
nothing of them. His _modesty_ may incline him to think, that such
writings are too mysterious for his comprehension: or, his _laziness
and presumption_ may dispose him to reject them, at once, as perfectly
unintelligible; to consider the language of them, as a jargon, to which
no ideas are annexed; or, at least, as a kind of cypher, of so wild and
fanatical a texture, that no clear and certain construction can be made
of it.

Now, this prejudice, whichever way it points, will be obviated, if it
can be shewn,

1. That the prophetic style was of common and approved use, in the
times when the prophecies were delivered, and among the people to whom
they were addressed.

And

2. That this style, how dark or fanciful soever it may appear, is yet
_reducible to rule_; that is, is constructed on such principles, as
make it the subject of just criticism and reasonable interpretation;
and, in particular, to us, at this day.

For a language is not _fanatical_, that is authorised by general
practice; nor can it be deemed _unintelligible_, when it is capable of
having its meaning ascertained.

I. The proof of these two points will most conveniently be given
together, in a deduction of the causes, which produced the character of
the prophetic style.

That character, I believe, is truly given by those who affirm, That
the style of the prophets was only the poetical, and highly figurative
style of the Eastern nations. But if you go farther and ask, How it
came to pass, that the oriental poetry was so much more figurative
than ours, it may not be enough to say, as many others have done, that
this difference of character was owing to the influence of the sun,
and to the superior heat and fervour, which it gave to an eastern
imagination. For I know not whether there be reason to think, that the
sun hath any such effect on the powers of the mind; or that the fancies
of men are apter to catch, and blaze out in metaphor, within a warm
climate, than a cold one: a figurative cast of style being observable
in the native poetry of all countries; and that, so far as appears from
history and experience, in a pretty equal degree.

Besides, if the fact were allowed, the answer would scarce be
sufficient. For, as we shall presently see, the symbolic language of
Prophecy, is too consistent and uniform, hath too much of art and
method in it, to be derived from the casual flights and sallies of
the imagination _only_, how powerfully soever you suppose it to have
operated in the prophets.

We then must go much deeper for a true account of the emblematic and
highly coloured expression, which glares so strongly in the prophetic
scriptures: and we shall find it, partly, in the nature of the human
mind; and, partly, in the genius, indeed, of the oriental nations, and
especially of the Jews, but as fashioned, not by the influence of their
climate, but by the modes of their learning and institution.

I must be as brief as possible, on a subject, which many learned
writers[153] have largely and fully discussed; and, as the reflexions
I have to offer to you upon it, are chiefly taken from them, I may the
rather bespeak your attention to what follows.

1. First, then, let it be observed, that the original language of all
nations is extremely imperfect. Their stock of words being small, they
explain themselves very much by _signs_, or representative actions:
and their conceptions, in that early state of society, being gross and
rude, the few words they have, are replete with material images, and
so are what we call highly metaphorical; and this, not from choice
or design, or even from any extraordinary warmth of fancy, but of
necessity, and from the very nature of things.

Such is the primitive character of all languages: and it continues long
in all, because the figurative manner is thought ornamental, when it
is no longer necessary; and because the necessity of it is only, if at
all, removed by long use and habit in abstract speculation: a degree
of refinement, to which the orientals, and the Jews especially, never
attained. And therefore in their languages, very long

    —_Manserunt, hodieque manent vestigia ruris._

Thus far we may go in accounting for the figured style of the east,
from general principles. But this is by no means the whole of the case.
For

2. We are to reflect, that, before an alphabet was invented, and what
we call literary writing was formed into an art, men had no way to
record their conceptions, or to convey them to others at a distance,
but by setting down the figures and shapes of such things, as were the
objects of their contemplation. Hence, the way of writing in _picture_,
was as universal, and almost as early, as the way of speaking in
_metaphor_; and from the same reason, the necessity of the thing.

In process of time, and through many successive improvements, this
rude and simple mode of _picture-writing_ was succeeded by that of
_symbols_, or was enlarged at least, and enriched by it. By symbols,
I mean certain representative marks, rather than express pictures;
or if pictures, such as were at the same time _characters_, and,
besides presenting to the eye the resemblance of a particular object,
suggested a general idea to the mind. As, when a _horn_ was made to
denote _strength_, an _eye and scepter_, _majesty_, and in numberless
such instances; where the picture was not drawn to express merely
the thing itself, but something else, which was, or was conceived
to be, analogous to it. This more complex and ingenious form of
picture-writing was much practised by the Egyptians, and is that which
we know by the name of HIEROGLYPHICS.

Indeed, these _symbolic characters_ were likely, in a course of
successive refinements, to pass into characters by _institution_: and
have, in fact, undergone that change among the Chinese: and it might be
expected that _both_ would be laid aside by any people that should come
to be acquainted with the far more convenient and expeditious method
of alphabetic writing. But the event, in some instances, hath been
different. The Chinese adhere to their _characters_, though from their
late intercourse with the European nations, one cannot but suppose,
that the knowledge of _letters_ has been conveyed to them: and the
Egyptians, through all the extent of their long subsisting and highly
polished empire, retained their _hieroglyphics_, notwithstanding their
invention and use of an _alphabet_.

Their inducement to this practice might be, the pleasure they took
in a mode of writing, which gratified their inventive curiosity in
looking into the natures and analogies of things; or, it might be a
strain of policy in them to secrete by this means, their more important
discoveries from the vulgar; or, vanity might put them on raising the
value of their knowledge by wrapping it up in a vehicle, so amusing at
the same time, and mysterious.

What account soever be given of it, the fact is, that the Egyptians
cultivated the hieroglyphic species of writing, with peculiar
diligence; while the antiquity, the splendor, the fame of that mighty
kingdom excited a veneration for it, in the rest of the world. Hence it
came to pass, that the learning of those times, which was spread from
Egypt, as from its center, took a strong tincture of the hieroglyphic
spirit. The East was wholly infected by it; so that it became the pride
of its wise men to try the reach of each other’s capacity by questions
conceived and proposed in this form. Even the Greeks, in much later
ages, caught the manner of symbolizing their conceptions from Egypt;
and either drew their mythology from that quarter, or dressed it out in
the old Egyptian garb. But the Israelites, especially, who had their
breeding in that country, at the time when the hieroglyphic learning
was at its height, carried this treasure with them, among their other
_spoils_, into the land of Canaan. And, though it be credible that
their great Law-giver interdicted the use of hieroglyphic characters,
yet the ideas of them were deeply imprinted on their minds, and came
out, on every occasion, in those symbols and emblems, with which, under
the names of _riddles_, _parables_, and _dark sayings_, their writings
are so curiously variegated and imbossed.

This then is the true and proper account of that peculiar style, which
looks so strangely, and to those, who do not advert to this original of
it, perhaps so fantastically, in the writings of the prophets. And what
more natural, than that a mode of expression, which was so well known,
so commonly practised, and so much revered; which was effected by the
wittiest, nay, by the wisest men of those times; which was employed in
the theology of the Eastern world, in its poetry, its philosophy, and
all the sublimer forms of composition; What wonder, I say, that this
customary, this authorized, this admired strain of language should
be that in which the sacred writers conveyed their highest and most
important revelations to mankind?

Nor let any man take offence at the condescension of the divine
Inspirer, as though he degraded himself, by his compliance with the
humours and fancies of those to whom his inspirations were addressed.
For let him reflect, that in what form of words soever it shall please
God to communicate himself to man, it must still be in a way, that
implies the utmost, indeed the same, condescension to our weaknesses
and infirmities; nay, that immediate inspiration itself, though coming
through no medium of language, is of necessity to be accommodated to
our methods of perceiving and understanding, how imperfect soever they
are.

Besides, if external revelation be possible, it must be given in
some one mode of speech or writing, in preference to others. And,
if we consider how ancient, how general, how widely diffused, this
symbolic style has been, and still is, in the world; how necessary it
is to rude nations, and how taking with the most refined; how large
a proportion of the globe this practice had over-run before, and at
the time of writing the prophecies, and what vast regions of the South
and East, not yet professing the faith, but hereafter, as we presume,
to be enlightened by it, the same practice, at this day, overspreads;
when we consider all this, we shall cease perhaps to admire, that the
style in question was adopted, rather than any other; or we shall only
admire the divine goodness and wisdom of its Author, who had contrived
beforehand, in the very form of this revelation, what may possibly
help to bring on and facilitate the reception of it. Certainly, it may
become us, on such an occasion, to enlarge our ideas a little; and not
to conclude hastily and peremptorily that, when a general blessing was
intended by Providence, the mode of conveying it should be instituted
singly with an eye to our local notions and confined prejudices, and
with no regard to the more prevailing sentiments and expectations of
mankind.

In the mean time, it is past a doubt that the hieroglyphic style was
predominant in the ancient world; in Judæa, particularly, from the
times of Moses to the coming of Christ. There was indeed a degree of
obscurity in it, so far at least as to furnish the Jews, who had no
mind to listen to their Prophets, with a pretence of not understanding
them (as we see from the complaint brought against the prophet Ezekiel
in the text, _Doth he not speak Parables?_) yet still, it cannot be
denied, _That this mode of writing was of common and approved use in
the ages, when the prophecies were delivered, and among the people, to
whom they were addressed_.

Our FIRST proposition is then reasonably made out; and so much of
the SECOND, as affirms that the prophetic style _is constructed
on such principles as make it the subject of just criticism and
rational interpretation_. For it was constructed, as we have seen, on
the symbolic principles of the hieroglyphics; which were not vague
uncertain things; but fixed and constant analogies, determinable in
their own nature, or from the steady use that was made of them. And a
language, formed on such principles, may be reasonably interpreted upon
them. So that what remains is only to shew, that there _are_ means, by
which this abstruse language may become intelligible to us, at this day.

II. That there are such means, you will easily collect, without
requiring me to come to a detail on so immense a subject, from the
following considerations.

1. Some light may be expected to arise from the study of the prophecies
themselves. For the same symbols, or figures, recur frequently in
those writings: and, by comparing one passage with another; the darker
prophecies with the more perspicuous; the unfulfilled, with such as
have been completed; and those which have their explanation annexed to
them, with those that have not; by this course of inquiry, I say, there
is no doubt but some considerable progress may be made in fixing the
true and proper meaning of this mysterious language.

2. Very much of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, on which, as we have seen,
the prophetic style was fashioned, may be learned from many ancient
records and monuments, still subsisting; and from innumerable hints and
passages, scattered through the Greek antiquaries and historians, which
have been carefully collected and compared by learned men.

3. The Pagan superstitions of every form and species, which were either
derived from Egypt, or conducted on hieroglyphic notions, have been
of singular use in commenting on the Jewish prophets. Their Omens,
Augury, and Judicial Astrology seem to have proceeded on symbolic
principles; the mystery being only this, That such objects, as in the
hieroglyphic pictures, were made the symbols of certain ideas, were
considered as omens of the things themselves. Thus, the figure of a
_horse_, being the symbol of prosperity and success in arms, when a
_head_ of this animal was found in laying the foundations of Carthage,
the Soothsayers concluded, that the character of that state would be
warlike, and its fortune prosperous: or, thus again, because the _sun_
was the common emblem of a King, or supreme governor in any state,
an _eclipse_ of this luminary was thought to indicate the ruin, or
diminution, at least, of his power and fortune; and the superstition is
not quite extinct at this day[154].

But, of all the Pagan superstitions, that which is known by the name of
_Oneirocritics_, or the art of interpreting dreams, is most directly to
our purpose. There is a curious treatise on this subject, which bears
the name of Achmet, an Arabian writer; and another by Artemidorus,
an Ephesian, who lived about the end of the first century[155]. In
the former of these collections (for both works are compiled out of
preceding and very ancient writers) the manner of interpreting dreams,
according to the use of the Oriental nations, is delivered; as the
rules, which the Græcian diviners followed, are deduced in the other.
For, light and frivolous as this art was, it is not to be supposed
that it was taken up at hazard, or could be conducted without rule;
an arbitrary or capricious interpretation of dreams, considered as
a mode of divination, being too gross an insult on the common sense
of mankind[156]. But the rules, by which both the Greek and Oriental
diviners justified their interpretations, appear to have been formed
on symbolic principles, that is, on the very same ideas of analogy, by
which the Egyptian hieroglyphics (now grown venerable, and even sacred)
were explained. So that the prophetic style, which is all over painted
with hieroglyphic imagery, receives an evident illustration from these
two works.

I have said, that this superstition was _more immediately to our
purpose, than any other_. For some of the more important prophecies are
delivered in the way of dreams; and therefore, without doubt, the rules
for interpreting the symbols presented to the mind of the prophet in
these inspired dreams, were the very same with those, that were laid
down in the Gentile Oneirocritics. The conclusion, I know, may appear
bold and hazardous. But you will reflect that there is really nothing
more strange in applying this mode of interpretation to _dreams_,
than to any other species of prophecy; to visions, for instance, or
parables, or even, in general, to any part of the prophetic style.
The compliance, on the part of the inspirer, is the same on every
supposition; and only shews that, when the Deity thinks fit to reveal
himself to men, he does it in a way that is suitable to their ideas and
apprehensions. Nor is any sanction, in the mean time, given, by this
accommodation of himself, to the pagan practice of divining by dreams.
For, though the same symbols be interpreted in the same manner, yet the
_prophecy_ doth not depend on the interpretation, but the inspiration
of the dream. A casual dream, thus interpreted, is only a dream
still; the received sense of the symbols, represented in it, no way
inferring the completion of it. But when the Almighty sends the dream,
the symbols are of another consideration, and not only signify, but
_predict_, an event.

Now, if men will mistake a _barely significant emblem_, for _a
prophetic inspiration_, the fault is in themselves, and not in the use
of the common emblems; which may be the vehicle of a true prophecy,
though craft or superstition take occasion from them to _divine
lies_[157]. It follows, that the rules, which the ancient diviners
observed in explaining symbolic dreams, may be safely and justly
applied to the interpretation of symbolic prophecies, and especially to
such of them as were delivered in the form of dreams.

4. It is lastly to be observed, that not only the Arabic and other
Oriental writers, but even the Greek and Latin poets, may contribute
very much to the exposition of the ancient prophets. For these poets
abound in strong metaphors and glowing images, which were either copied
from the symbolic language of the East, or invented on the same
principles of analogy as prevailed in the Egyptian hieroglyphics. So
that many expressions, which seem dark and strange in the writings of
the Jewish prophets, may be clearly illustrated and familiarized to us,
even from classic usage and example.

And now from these several sources; that is, from _the scriptures
themselves_—from the still _subsisting monuments of Egyptian
hieroglyphics_—from _the Gentile ceremonies and superstitions_—and
from _the greater works of genius and fancy, transmitted to us both
from the Eastern and Western poets_—such a vocabulary of the prophetic
terms and symbols may be, nay hath been[158], drawn up, as serves to
determine the sense of them in the same manner, as any common art or
language is explained by its own proper key, or dictionary; and there
is, in truth, no more difficulty in fixing the import of the prophetic
style, than of any other language or technical phraseology whatsoever.

III. But, if the case be so clear, you may now be tempted to ask, “What
then becomes of the obscurity, in which the prophecies are said to be
involved; and in particular, how comes it to pass, that they may not be
as well explained, before the completion, as after it[159]; which yet
is constantly denied by writers on this subject, and, even, by your own
principles, cannot be supposed?”

To this objection, I shall not reply by saying, That the style of
the prophets, though intelligible, yet requires much practice in the
interpreter to unfold its meaning; for that is the case of many other
arts and sciences, which yet are generally understood: nor, that the
symbolic terms are frequently capable of several senses, which must
needs perplex the interpretation; for there is no common language, in
which the plainest words do not frequently admit the same difference of
construction, which yet creates no great difficulty to those who attend
closely to the scope of a writer: I shall not therefore, I say, amuse
you with these evasive answers, but reply, directly to the purpose of
your inquiry, by observing,

“That there are several methods, or, if you will, artifices, by which
the inspired writers, under the cover of a symbolic expression, and
sometimes even without it, might effectually conceal their meaning,
before the completion of a prophecy, though the language, in which they
write, be clearly explicable on fixed and stated rules.”

1. When the prophecy is of remote events, the _subject_ is frequently
not announced, or announced only in general terms. Thus, an
_earthquake_ is described—a _mountain_ is said to be thrown down—a
_star_, to fall from heaven; and so in numberless other instances.
Now, an earthquake, in hieroglyphic language, denotes a _revolution
in government_; a mountain is the symbol of a _kingdom_, or _capital
city_; a star, of _a prince_, or _great man_: but of _what_ government,
of _what_ kingdom, of _what_ prince, the prophet speaks, we are not
told, and are frequently unable to find out, till a full coincidence of
all circumstances, in the event, discloses the secret.

2. The prophetic terms are not only figurative, but sometimes, and
in no common degree, hyperbolical (of which the reason will be given
hereafter), so that nothing but the event can determine the true
size and value of them. This seems to have been the case of those
prophecies in the Old Testament, which describe the tranquillity and
felicity of Christ’s kingdom; and may possibly be the case of those
prophecies in the New, which respect the Millennium.

3. It being the genius of the prophetic style to be ænigmatical, this
cast is sometimes purposely given to it, even when the expression is
most plain and direct. Thus Jeremiah prophesies of Zedekiah, king of
Judah, _that he should be delivered into the hands of the king of
Babylon, that his eyes should behold the eyes of the king of Babylon,
and that he should go to Babylon_[160]. Ezekiel, prophesying of the
same prince, says, _that he should go to Babylon, but that he should
not see it, though he should die there_[161]. Now Josephus tells us,
that the apparent inconsistency of these two prophecies determined
Zedekiah to believe neither of them. Yet both were strictly and
punctually fulfilled.

4. Lastly, the chief difficulty of all lies in a circumstance, not much
observed by interpreters, and, from the nature of it, not _observable_,
till after the event; I mean, in _a mixed use of the plain and
figured style_: so that the prophetic descriptions are sometimes
_literal_, even when they appear most figurative; and sometimes,
again, they are highly _figurative_, when they appear most plain.
An instance of _literal_ expression, under the mask of figurative,
occurs in the prophet Nahum, who predicts the overthrow of Nineveh in
these words—_With an over-running flood he will make an utter end
of the place thereof_, [Nahum i. 8.] An _over-running flood_, is the
hieroglyphic symbol of _desolation by a victorious enemy_: and in this
highly figurative sense, an interpreter of the prophecy would, in all
likelihood, understand the expression. But the event shewed the sense
to be literal; that city being taken, as we know from history, by
means of an _inundation_. Of _figurative_ expression, under the form
of literal, take the following instance from a prophecy, of Christ
himself; who says to the Jews, _Destroy this temple, and I will raise
it up in three days_, [John i. 19.] It was natural enough for the
Jews to understand our Lord as speaking of the _temple_ at Jerusalem;
the rather, as this term had not been, and, I think, could, not be,
applied, to any person, before Jesus: to _Him_, it might be so applied;
and we know that _he spake of the temple of his body_, [ver. 21.]

The same equivocal use was, sometimes, purposely made of _proverbial
expressions_, as learned men have observed[162].

I omit many other causes of obscurity in the prophecies; such as
the seeming incredibility, sometimes, of the things predicted—the
undefined chronology and geography—the intricacy of the method—and
many other considerations. But you will collect from these brief
hints, respecting the _expression_ only, that, though the symbolic
language be reducible to rule, and therefore, in the main, sufficiently
intelligible, yet that there is room enough for the introduction of
so much obscurity into the prophetic writings, as may answer the ends
of the inspirer, and conceal the full meaning of them from the most
sagacious interpreter, till it be revealed, in due time, by the event.

Or, if it be thought that such difficulties as the event removes, are
not, in their own nature, invincible, before it happens, it is still
to be considered, that the giver of the prophecy is, by supposition,
divine; and as he, therefore, foresaw, in framing the texture of it,
that such difficulties would, in fact, be invincible, they served
the purpose of a designed concealment just as well, as if, in nature,
they were. Whence the conclusion is still the same, That the prophetic
style might be the cover of impenetrable obscurities in a prophecy,
before its completion, and yet the terms of it be clearly explicable on
established rules; the event only enabling the expositor more skilfully
and properly to apply those rules.

IV. To conclude this subject; It will now be acknowledged, that the
suspicions which have been taken up against the prophetic way of
writing, as if it were vague, illusory, or unintelligible, are utterly
without foundation. The style of the prophets was the known, authorized
style of their age and country, in all writings especially, of a
sacred or solemn character; and is even yet in use with a great part
of mankind. It further appears, that, as it was understood by those to
whom it was addressed, so the principles, on which it was formed, are
discoverable by many obvious methods, and may be applied, with success,
to the interpretation of it, at this day.

The prophetic style is, then, a _sober and reasonable_ mode
of expression. But this is not all. We may, even, discern the
_expediency_, I had almost said, the _necessity_, of this style,
considered as the _medium_, or vehicle of prophetic inspiration.

For we have seen, that the scheme of scriptural prophecy extends
through all time; and is so contrived as to adumbrate future and more
illustrious events, in preceding and less important transactions:
a circumstance, which shews the harmony and connexion of the whole
scheme, and is not imitable by any human art, or forethought
whatsoever. But now a figurative style is so proper to that end, that
we scarcely conceive how it could be accomplished by any other. For
thus the expression conforms, at once, to the type, and antitype: it
is, as it were, a robe of state, for the one; and only, the ordinary,
accustomed dress of the other: as we may see from the prophecies,
which _immediately_ respect the restoration of the Jews from their
ancient captivities, and, _ultimately_, their final triumphant return
from their present dispersion—from the prophecies concerning the
destruction of Jerusalem, which prefigure, at the same time, the day
of judgment—from those concerning the first coming of Christ, which,
also, set forth his reign with the saints on earth, and even the
glories of his heavenly kingdom—and in a multitude of other instances.

These successive, and so different, schemes of Providence could only
be signified _together_ in a mode of language, that contracted, or
enlarged itself, as the occasion required. But such is the singular
property of a symbolic style. For none but this, hath fold and drapery
enough, if I may so speak, to invest the _greater_ subjects; while yet
(so complying is the texture of this expression) it readily adapts
itself to the _less considerable_, which it ennobles only, and not
disfigures. The difference is, that what is a metaphor in the former
case, becomes an hyperbole in the latter. And this double use of the
same symbol, is the true account of such figures as are thought most
extravagant in the description of the prophets.

We see, then, in every view, how reasonable, how expedient, how divine,
the symbolic style is, in such writings as the prophetic. So that if
any be disposed, in our days, to take up the complaint of the text,
and to up-braid the prophets by asking, _Do they not speak Parables?_
We may now take courage to answer, Yes: but _parables_, which, as
dark as they are accounted to be, may be well understood; and, what
is more, _parables_, which are so expressed, as to carry an evidence
in themselves that they _are_ what they assume to be, of divine
inspiration.




SERMON X.

THE STYLE AND METHOD OF THE APOCALYPSE.

EZEKIEL xx. 49.

—_They say of me, Doth he not speak Parables?_


All the prophecies of the Old and New Testament are written in
_parables_; that is, in highly figurative terms; which yet, on
examination, have appeared to be explicable on certain fixed and
rational grounds of criticism.

So far, therefore, as any prejudice may have been entertained against
the prophecies concerning Antichrist, as if the language of them were
too abstruse or fanciful to be understood, enough hath been already
said to shew, that it is not well founded.

It must, however, be confessed, that the book of _Revelations_[163],
which contains the most, and the chief prophecies on the subject of
Antichrist, is of a deeper and more mysterious contrivance, than any
other of the prophetic writings. Whence, our next step, in this
inquiry, must be, To trace the CAUSES of that peculiar obscurity; and
to suggest, as we go along, the MEANS, by which it hath been, or may
be, removed.

The _causes_, are to be sought in the STYLE, and the METHOD, of
that book. I say nothing of the _subject_; for, though the _things
predicted_ may darken a prophecy, unfulfilled, the _event_ will shew
what they are; and it is not necessary, that we should anxiously
inquire into the meaning of a prophecy, till it be accomplished.

I. _First_, then, the STYLE of the Revelations (for I mean not to
consider it, with regard to the Greek tongue, in which it is composed,
or, to the Hebrew idiom, with which it is coloured) The _style_, I
say, being symbolical, like that of the other prophecies, must, in
general, be explained on the same principles, that is, must be equally
intelligible, in both. Yet, if we attend nicely to the style of
this prophecy, some difference will be found, in _the choice of the
symbols_, and in _the continuity of the symbolic form_.

1. To explain my meaning, on the first article, I must observe, That,
though the prophetic style abounds in _hieroglyphic_ symbols, properly
so called, yet the Israelites, when they adopted that style, did not
confine themselves to the old Egyptian stock of symbols; but, working
on the same ground of analogy, superadded many others, which their
own circumstances and observations suggested to them. Their divine
ritual, their civil customs, their marvellous history, and even the
face and aspect of their country, afforded infinite materials for the
construction of fresh symbols: and these, when they came into common
use, their prophets freely and largely employed. Thus, _incense_, from
the religious use of it in the Mosaical service, denotes _prayer_, or
_mental adoration_[164]—_to tread a wine-press_, from their custom
of pressing grapes, signifies _destruction, attended with great
slaughter_[165]—_to give water in the wilderness_, in allusion to the
miraculous supply of that element, during the passage of the Israelites
through the wilderness to the holy land, is the emblem of _unexpected
relief in distress_[166];—and, to mention no more, a _forest_, such as
Lebanon, abounding in lofty cedars, represents a _great city, with its
flourishing ranks of inhabitants_[167]; just as, a _mountain_, from
the situation of the Jewish temple on mount Moria, is made to stand for
the _Christian Church_[168].

Now, though the symbols of this class be occasionally dispersed through
the old prophets, yet they are more frequent, and much thicker sown,
in the Revelations: so that to a reader, not well versed in the Jewish
story and customs, this difference may add something to the obscurity
of the book.

If you ask the _reason_ of this difference, it is plainly this. The
scene of the apocalyptic visions is laid, not only in Judæa, but in
the temple at Jerusalem; whence the imagery is, of course, taken. It
was natural for the writer to draw his allusions from Jewish objects,
and especially from the ceremonial of the temple-service. Besides,
the declared scope of the prophecy being to predict the fortunes of
the Christian church, what so proper as to do this under the cover
of Jewish ideas; the law itself, as we have before seen, and as St.
Paul expressly tells us, having been so contrived, as to present the
_shadow_ of that future dispensation?

This then (and for the reason assigned) is ONE distinguishing character
of the Apocalyptic style. But the difficulty of interpretation, arising
from it, cannot be considerable; or, if it be, may be overcome by an
obvious method, by a careful study of the Jewish history and law.

2. The OTHER mark of distinction, which I observed in the style of
this book, is the _continuity_ of the symbolic manner. Parables are
frequent, indeed, in the old prophets, but interspersed with many
passages of history, and have very often their explanation annexed.
This great parable of St. John is, throughout, carried on in its own
proper form, without any such interruption, and, except in _one_
instance[169], without any express interpretation of the parabolic
terms.

Now, the prophecy, no doubt, must be considerably obscured by
this circumstance. But then let it be considered, that we have
proportionable _means_ of understanding it. For, if the symbols be
continued, they are still but the _same_[170], as had been before in
use with the elder prophets; whose writings, therefore, are the proper
and the certain key of the _Revelations_.

From these distinctive characters, then, of the Apocalyptic style[171],
nothing more can be inferred, than the necessity of studying _the Law,
and the Prophets_, in order to understand the language of this last and
most mysterious revelation. And what is more natural, nay what can be
thought more divine, than that, in a system, composed of two dependent
dispensations, the study of the former should be made necessary to the
comprehension of the latter; and that the very uniformity of style and
colouring, in the two sets of prophecies, should admonish us of the
intimate connexion, which each has with the other, to the end that we
might the better conceive the meaning, and fathom the depth, of the
divine councils in _both_?

But, without speculating further on the final purposes of this Judaical
and Symbolical character, so strongly impressed on the Apocalypse,
it must evidently appear that the difficulties of interpretation,
occasioned by it, are not invincible; nay, that, to an attentive and
rightly prepared interpreter, they will be scarce any difficulties at
all[172].

I proceed, then,

II. To the SECOND, and more considerable cause of the obscurities,
found in this prophecy, the METHOD, in which it is composed.

The other prophecies have, doubtless, their difficulties, arising from
the abrupt manner, in which, agreeably to the Oriental genius, they are
delivered: But then, being short and unconnected with each other, the
apparent disorder of those prophecies, has rarely any sensible effect
in preventing the right application of them. The case is different with
the prophecies, contained in this book. For, having been all delivered
at once, and respecting a series of events, which were to come to pass
successively in the history of the Christian Church, it is reasonable
to expect that some certain and determinable method should be observed
in the delivery of them; and the true secret of that method, whatever
it be, must be investigated, before we can, with success, apply any
single prophecy to its proper subject.

The _first_, and most obvious expectation of a reader is, that the
events predicted in this prophecy should follow each other in the order
of the prophecy itself, or that the series of the visions should mark
out and determine the succession of the subjects, to which they relate.
But there is reason to think, on the face of the prophecy, that this
method is not observed.

A _second_ conclusion would, then, be hastily taken up, that there
is no regular method at all in these visions, but that each is to be
applied singly, and without any reference to the rest, to such events
as it might be found, in some tolerable degree, to suit: And then
it is plain, that fancy would have too much scope afforded her in
the interpretation of these visions, to produce any firm and settled
conviction, that they were rightly and properly applied. Yet, as this
idea of the Apocalypse would favour the laziness, the precipitancy, the
presumption, and, very often, the malignity of the human mind, it is no
wonder that it should be readily and eagerly embraced. And, in fact, it
was to this pre-conceived notion of a general disorder in the texture
of these prophecies, that the little progress, which, for many ages,
had been made in the exposition of them, is chiefly to be ascribed.

But then, _lastly_, if neither the order of the prophecy be that of
the events, nor a total disorder in the construction of it can be
reasonably allowed, the question is, By what _rules_ was it composed,
and on what ideas of _method_ is it to be explained?

This question, as obvious as it seems, was not presently asked; and,
when it was asked, not easily answered. The clear light, indeed, which
the Reformation had let in on some parts bf this prophecy, and a spirit
of inquiry, which sprung up with the revival of Letters, excited a
general attention to this mysterious book. But, as each interpreter
brought his own hypothesis along with him, the perplexities of it
were not lessened, but increased by so many discordant schemes of
interpretation: And the issue of much elaborate inquiry was, that the
book itself was disgraced by the fruitless efforts of its commentators,
and on the point of being given up, as utterly impenetrable, when
a sublime Genius arose, in the beginning of the last century, and
surprised the learned world with that great desideratum, _A Key to the
Revelations_.

This extraordinary person was, JOSEPH MEDE: of whose character it may
not be improper to give a slight sketch, before I lay before you the
substance of his discoveries.

HE was a candid, sincere man; disinterested, and unambitious; of no
faction in religion or government (both which began in his time to be
overrun with factions) but solely devoted to the love of truth, and to
the investigation of it. His learning was vast, but well chosen and
well digested; and his understanding, in no common degree, strong and
capacious.

With these qualities of the head and heart, he came to the study of
the prophecies, and especially of the Revelations: But, with so little
_bigotry_ for the scheme of interpretation concerning Antichrist,
that, as he tells us himself, _he had even conceived some prejudice
against it_[173]: And, what is stranger still in a man of his inventive
genius, with so little _enthusiasm_ in his temper for _any_ scheme of
interpretation whatsoever, that, when he had made his great discovery,
he was in no haste to publish it to the world[174]; and, when at length
he did this, he was still less in haste to apply it, that is, to shew
its important use in explaining the Apocalyptic visions[175]. Cool,
deliberate, and severe, in forming his judgments, he was so far from
being obsequious to the fancies of other men, that he was determined
only, by the last degree of evidence, to acquiesce in any conclusions
of his own[176].

In short, with no _vanity_ to indulge, (for he was superior to this
last infirmity of ingenious men[177])—with no _interest_ in view (for
the interest of Churchmen lay at that time, as he well understood, in a
different quarter[178])—with no _spleen_ to gratify (for even neglect
and solitude could not engender this unmanly vice in him[179])—with
no oblique purposes, I say, which so often mislead the pens of other
writers, but with the single, unmixed love of truth, he dedicated his
great talents to the study of the prophetic Scriptures, and was able
to unfold, in the MANNER I am now to represent to you, this mysterious
prophecy of the Revelations.

He had observed, that the miscarriage of former interpreters had been
owing, chiefly, to a vain desire of finding their own sense in this
prophecy, rather than the sense of the prophet. Laying aside, then, all
hypotheses whatsoever, he sate down to the book itself, and resolved
to know nothing more of it, than what the frame and texture of its
composition might clearly reveal to him. He considered the whole, as
a naked recital of facts, literally expressed; and not as a prophetic
scheme, mystically represented. In this way of inquiry, he discerned,
that several parts of the history, whatever their secret and involved
meaning might be, were _homogeneous_, and _contemporary_; that is,
they related to the same subject, and were comprised within the same
period; and this, though they were not connected in the order of the
narration, but lay dispersed in different quarters of it. These several
sets of historical passages (or, of _Visions_, to speak in the language
of the book itself) he carefully analyzed and compared; shewed, from
circumstances, not imagined, but found, in the history, their mutual
relation and correspondency; and established his conclusions, as he
went along, not in a loose way of popular conjecture, but in the
strictest forms of Geometric reasoning. The coincident histories, thus
classed and scrutinized, he distinguished by the name of SYNCHRONISMS;
and gave them to the learned world, in this severe scientific form,
without further comment or illustration, under the title of CLAVIS
APOCALYPTICA, or A KEY TO THE REVELATIONS.

In considering this discovery, which did so much honour to the profound
genius and accurate investigation of its author, one clearly perceives
how it serves to the end proposed.

_First_, it appears that the order of the Visions is not that of the
events; in other words, that the prophecy is not to be so explained, as
if the events, predicted in it, followed each other in the same train
as the Visions. For the _facts_, which constitute the scheme or fable
of the prophecy, literally and historically considered, do not succeed
to each other in that train; therefore the _events_, whatever they may
be, which those facts adumbrate, most certainly cannot.

_Secondly_, it appears what the true, or chronological order of the
Visions, is; namely, that, which the nature and connexion of the things
transacted in them, points out and declares. So that, if the real time
of any one Vision can be shewn, the relative time of the rest may be
easily settled. For (to quote Mr. Mede’s own words) _such Visions
as contemporate with that already ascertained, are of course to be
applied to the same times; while such as, in the order of the story,
precede that Vision, are to be referred to preceding events, and those,
which follow it, are in like manner to be explained of subsequent
transactions_[180].

By this means, the whole plan or method of the Apocalypse will be laid
down. The several synchronical prophecies will thus fall in their
proper places; and there will be no doubt of the relative situation,
which each holds in the general system.

_Thirdly_, as we now see the true order of the prophecies (though for
the wisest reasons, no doubt, the order, in which they are delivered,
be sometimes different) so it is to be observed, that the knowledge
of this order is a great restraint on the fancy of an expositor; who
is not now at liberty to apply the prophecies to events of any time,
to which they appear to suit, but to events only falling within that
time, to which they belong in the course of this pre-determined method.
And if to this restriction, which of itself is considerable, we add
_another_, which arises from the necessity of applying, not one, but
many prophecies (which are, thus, shewn to synchronize with each other)
to the _same_ time, we can hardly conceive how an interpretation should
keep clear of these impediments, and make its way through so many
interfering checks, unless it be the _true_ one. Just as when a Lock
(to take the author’s allusion) is composed of many, and intricate
wards, the _Key_, that turns easily within them, and opens the Lock,
can only be that which properly belongs to it.

After all, it may be difficult, I know, to convey a distinct idea
of the uses, to which this synchronal method serves, to those who
have not read, and even studied, Mr. Mede’s work. But the sum of the
matter is this, That the order of the events and of the Visions is
_not_ the same—that the _true_ order of the events, is to be sought
in certain characters, not fancied at pleasure, but inserted, in the
Visions themselves—and, lastly, that the whole book of the Revelations
being thus resolvable into a particular determinate order, in which
the several sets of synchronal prophecies regularly succeed to each
other, no exposition of this book can be admitted, that does not refer
every single prophecy to its true place in the system, and provide at
the same time that no violence be done to any other prophecies, which
synchronize with it.

And thus much concerning the TRUE ORDER of the Apocalypse; deduced,
you see, from no precarious hypothetic reasonings, but from notes and
characters, inclosed in that book; that is, from intrinsic arguments,
which have their evidence in themselves, and conclude alike on every
supposition.

If we would know more distinctly what the EXTERIOR FORM of it is; and
how it comes to differ so widely from the plan of a chronological
arrangement; here, too, our sagacious expositor will give us
satisfaction. For, in bringing together and comparing his synchronisms,
he found (what had escaped the attention of all others) that the main
body of the prophecy is made up of TWO[181] great parts; which are,
also, synchronical; so that, setting out from the same goal, and
measuring the same space, they both concur in the same end: but with
this difference, that the _former_ division more immediately regards
the affairs of the _Empire_; the _latter_, those of the _Church_.

Still, this is not all. Our attentive and penetrating commentator
further discovered, That the two great component parts of this
prophecy, though distinct, are very artificially connected, and shewn
to harmonize throughout with each other, by making the same concluding
event[182], once told, the catastrophe of both. For the _former_ part
is purposely, and with express warning given[183], left unfinished,
till a summary deduction of the _latter_ part down to the same point
of time[184], (by way of prelude to the more extended visions of this
last part, which follow to the end of the book, and to signify, that
both parts are contemporary) furnished the occasion of shutting up the
two prophecies together in one common term: which, however, had the
appearance of being misplaced, till the detection of this singular
contrivance, by means of the synchronisms, pointed out the use and end
of the present disposition[185].

_Another_ cause of the seeming perplexity in which this Prophecy is
involved, is, That, it being expedient to treat the same subject in
different respects, and to give different views of it, according as
two sets of men, the true worshipers and the false, were affected by
the fortunes of the Christian Church, this shifting and opposite face
of things could not be exhibited together; but was to be set forth
in several and successive, though contemporary, visions. Hence, the
prophecy is thought to proceed, when, in fact, it stands still, and
only presents another prospect of the same transactions.

But I enter no farther into the mysterious contexture of this book;
through which, however, the clue of the synchronisms, if well pursued,
would safely conduct us. It is enough to my purpose to have shewn, That
as the _Language_ of the Revelations is intelligible, so the _Method_
is not involved in such intricacies, but that, in general, a regular, a
consistent, and, what is more, a _true_[186] conception may be formed
of it. Whence no sober man needs be discouraged from reading this
book; or will be in danger, I think, of losing either his wits, or his
reputation, in the study of it. For what should hinder a book, though
of prophecies, from being understood, when its _method_ may be clearly
defined, and its _language decyphered_? Provided always, that we only
interpret a prophecy by the event, and do not take upon us to determine
the event by a premature construction of the prophecy.

With this Apocalyptic key then (of which so much has been said), this
_key of knowledge_, in my hands, it may, now, be expected that I should
open this _dark parable_ of the Revelation, by applying so much of it,
at least, as respects Antichrist, to Apostate Papal Rome. But, besides
that there would not, in what remains of this course, be room enough
for a detailed account of the prophecies, _other reasons_ restrain
me from entering immediately on a task, not less easy perhaps, than
amusing. For Interpreters, I think, have generally been too much in
haste to apply the prophecies, before they had sufficiently prepared
the way for their application: So that, leaving many doubts unresolved,
which men of thought and inquiry are apt to entertain on this subject,
or not laying before them all the reasons and inducements, which should
engage their attention to it, their clearest expositions are not
received, and possibly not considered.

With regard, then, to the prophecies, concerning Antichrist, though
the chief obstructions in our way seem fairly removed, and it be now
evident that there _are_ certain grounds, on which the most abstruse
of them may be reasonably interpreted, yet, because the application
of them is a work of time and industry, many persons, before they
undertake it, may desire to know, What GENERAL ARGUMENTS there are,
which may assure them, beforehand, that their labour will not be
misemployed, and that Papal Rome is, in fact, concerned in the tenour
of these prophecies: And, when this demand has been made, they may
further wish to be informed, To what ENDS OR USES this whole inquiry
serves; of importance enough, I mean, to encourage and reward their
vigorous prosecution of it?

These desires and expectations are apparently not unreasonable: And to
satisfy them, in the best manner I can, will be the scope and purpose
of the two following Lectures.




SERMON XI.

PROPHETIC CHARACTERS OF ANTICHRIST.

LUKE xii. 56.

—_How is it, that ye do not discern this time?_


So much having been said on the _manner_, in which the prophecies,
respecting Antichrist, may be interpreted; I imagine that now, at
length, ye are disposed to ask, On what GENERAL GROUNDS we affirm, that
the Church of Rome is actually concerned in them.

To resolve this question, it will be sufficient to set before you, in
few words, some of the more obvious _notes_, or _characters_, by which
Antichrist is marked out in the prophecies: such, and so many of them,
as may convince you, that they are fairly applicable to the Church
of Rome; and that, taken together, they cannot well admit any other
application.

Of these prophetic characters,

I. The FIRST, I shall mention, is, _That we are to look for Antichrist
within the proper limits of the Roman empire_.

On this head, there is no controversy among those who acknowledge the
authority of the prophet Daniel, and can be none: For that prophet, in
his famous vision of the four kingdoms, says expressly, that, _among_
the ten kingdoms into which the fourth, or Roman, shall be divided,
ANOTHER _shall arise_[187]; that is, as all interpreters agree, the
kingdom of Antichrist. So that this power, whatever it be, must have
its birth and seat within the compass of the ten kingdoms, that is,
of the Roman empire, when, in some future time from the giving of
Daniel’s prophecy, it should be so divided.

But, to fix the station of the Antichristian power more precisely, it
is to be observed, that, as the four kingdoms of Daniel, considered in
succession to each other, form a _prophetic chronology_[188]; so in
another view, they form a _prophetic geography_[189], being considered,
in the eye of prophecy, as _co-existent_, as still _alive_, and
subsisting together, when the dominion of all, but the last, was taken
away[190].

In consequence of this idea, which Daniel gives us of his four
kingdoms, so much only is to be reckoned into the description of each
kingdom, as is peculiar to each; the remainder being part of some other
kingdom, still supposed to be in being, to which it properly belongs.
Thus, the SECOND, or Persian kingdom, does not take in the nations of
Chaldæa and Assyria, which make the body of the _first_ kingdom; nor
the THIRD, or Græcian kingdom, the countries of Media and Persia, being
the body of the _second_. In like manner, the FOURTH, or Roman kingdom,
does not, in the contemplation of the prophet, comprehend those
provinces, which make the body of the _third_, or Græcian kingdom, but
such only as constitute its own body, that is, the provinces on this
side of Greece: where, therefore, we are to look for the _eleventh_, or
Antichristian kingdom, as being to start up _among_ the ten, into which
the Roman kingdom should be divided.

We see, then, that, as Antichrist was to arise within the Roman
kingdom, so his station is farther limited to the European part of that
kingdom, or to the _Western empire_, properly so called.

This observation (which is not mine, but Sir Isaac Newton’s) is the
better worth making, because, in fact, the papal sovereignty never
extended farther than the Western provinces; at least, could never gain
a firm and permanent footing in the countries, which lie East of the
Mediterranean sea. But, whether you admit this interpretation, or not,
it is still clear that Antichrist was to arise somewhere within the
limits of the Roman empire. In what _part_ of that empire he was to
make his appearance, we certainly gather from

II. A SECOND prophetical note or character of this power, which is,
_That his seat and throne was to be the city of Rome itself_.

The prophet Daniel acquaints us only that the power we call
Antichristian, would spring up from _among_ the ruins of the fourth,
or Roman kingdom: But St. John, in the _Revelations_, fixes his
residence in the _capital city_ of that kingdom. For, when, in one of
his visions, he had been shewn a portentous _beast with seven heads and
ten horns, and a woman arrayed in purple_, riding upon him, an Angel
is made to interpret this symbolic vision in the following words—_The
seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth—and the
ten horns, which thou sawest, are ten kings—and the woman, which
thou sawest, is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the
earth_[191].

Words cannot be more determinate, than these. The _woman_, that rides
this BEAST, that is, the fourth empire, in its last state of _ten
horns_, or divided into ten kingdoms, is that Antichristian power, of
which we are now inquiring. She is seated on _seven hills_, nay, she is
_that great city, which reigneth_ [that is, in St. John’s time which
_reigned_] over the _kingdoms of the earth_. Rome, then, is the throne
of Antichrist, or is that city, which shall one day be Antichristian.
There is no possibility of evading the force of these terms.

It hath been said, that Constantinople, too, was situated on seven
hills. It may be so: But Constantinople did not, in the time of this
vision, _reign over the kings of the earth_. Besides, if its _dominion_
had not been mentioned, _the city on seven hills_ is so characteristic
of Rome, that the name itself could not have pointed it out more
plainly: As must be evident to all those, who recollect, what the Latin
writers have said on this subject.

The—_septem domini montes_—of one[192] poet is well known; and seems
the abridgement of a still more famous line in another[193]—

    _Septem urbs alta jugis, toto quæ præsidet orbi_:

To which, St. John’s idea of a _woman, seated on seven hills, and
reigning over the kings of the earth_, so exactly corresponds, that one
sees no difference between the poet and the prophet; except that the
_latter_ personifies his idea, as the genius of the prophetic style
required.

But a passage in Virgil is so much to our purpose, that it merits a
peculiar attention. This poet, in the most finished of his works, had
been celebrating the praises of a country life, which he makes the
source and origin of the Roman greatness.

    _Hanc_ olim veteres vitam coluere Sabini;
    _Hanc_ Remus et frater: _sic_ fortis Etruria crevit:
    Scilicet et rerum facta est pulcherrima Roma[194].

The encomium, we see, is made with that gradual pomp, which is
familiar to Virgil. And the last line (from its majestic simplicity,
the noblest, perhaps, in all his writings) one would naturally expect
should close the description. Yet he adds, to the surprize, and, I
believe, to the disappointment of most readers,

    _Septemque una sibi muro circumdedit arces_.

Had we found this passage in any other of the Latin poets, we should
have been apt to question the judgment of the writer; and to suspect,
that, in attempting to rise upon himself, he had fallen, unawares, into
an evident anti-climax. But the correct elegance of Virgil’s manner,
and his singular talent in working up an image, by just degrees, to the
precise point of perfection, may satisfy us, that he had his reason
for going on, where we might expect him to stop; which reason can
be no other, than that the _seven hills_ were necessary to complete
his description of the imperial city[195]. To an ancient Roman, the
circumstance of its _situation_ was, of all others, the most august and
characteristic; and Rome itself was not Rome, till it was contemplated
under this idea.

There was ground enough, then, for saying, “that the _name_ of Rome
could not have pointed out the city _more plainly_.” But I go farther,
and take upon me to assert, That the _periphrasis_ is even more
precise, and less equivocal, than the _proper name_ would have been,
if inserted in the prophecy. For _Rome_, so called, might have stood,
like Sodom, or Babylon, simply for an idolatrous City. But the city,
_seated on seven hills_, and _reigning over the earth_, is the city of
Rome itself, and excludes, by the peculiarity of these attributes, any
other application.

Nor is it any objection to the remark, now made, that this city,
whatever it be, is described by _another_ circumstance, not peculiar to
Rome, indeed scarce applicable to it, I mean that of its being _seated
on many waters_[196]. For these _waters_ are not given as a mark of
Rome’s _natural_, but _political_ situation: as the prophetic style
might lead one to expect, if the sacred writer had not taken care to
prevent all mistake by assuring us, in so many words, That _the waters,
where the whore sitteth, are_ PEOPLES, AND MULTITUDES, AND NATIONS, AND
TONGUES[197].

If it be, further, said, “That the _seven hills_ may, likewise, admit
a similar construction from the frequent use of _hills_, as emblems
of _power_, in hieroglyphic writing, and therefore in prophetic
description,” the remark is very just: but then, unluckily, there is
no such explanation of the _seven hills_, as we have of the _waters_,
from the prophet himself; while yet it could not escape him, that
such explanation was more than commonly necessary in this case, to
prevent the reader from applying the _seven hills_ to the best-known
city in the world, then subsisting in all its glory, and universally
acknowledged by this distinctive character of its situation.

Should it, lastly, be alledged, “That the explanation is subjoined to
the figure, for that the prophet adds immediately in the following
verse—_and there are seven kings_—meaning, that the _seven hills_,
just mentioned, were to be taken as emblems only of _seven kings_,”
I reply, that the _seven hills_, in the figurative sense of the
term, _hills_, naturally suggested, and elegantly introduce, the
_seven kings_; but that the _former_, nevertheless, are clearly to be
distinguished from the _latter_. For it is not said—_and the seven
hills are seven kings_—as it was before said—_the seven heads are
seven hills_—but—AND _there are seven kings_—plainly advancing a
step further in the prophecy, and pointing out a new characteristic
distinction of the seven-hilled city, arising from the different forms
of Government, through which it had passed.

The truth is (as Mr. Mede well observes[198]) _the seven heads of
the beast_, are a DOUBLE TYPE: _first_, they signify the _seven
hills_, on which the city is placed; and, _then_, the _seven kings_,
or governments, to which it had been subject; but still _on_ those
seven hills, for which reason the same type is made to signify both:
But, if the type had been designed to carry a _single_ sense, and
_kings_ had been that sense, as explicatory of _hills_, it had been
very preposterous to give the _interpretation_ of the type, and then
to _interpret_ the interpretation, unless the expression had been so
guarded as to convey this purpose in the most distinct manner. As it is
now put, there are manifestly TWO SENSES, and ONE TYPE[199].

On the whole, there can be no doubt concerning _the great city on seven
hills_. It can be no other, than the city of Rome itself: In other
words, the Antichristian, is a _Roman Power_.

Still, this Roman power, for any thing that hath hitherto appeared, may
be a _Pagan_ and _Civil_ power. But

III. The prophecies seem very clearly to point it out to us, _as an_
ECCLESIASTICAL and, in name and pretence, at least, _a_ CHRISTIAN
_power_.

To begin again with the prophet, Daniel. He tells us, that the Horn
which shall _arise after_, and from _among_, the ten horns, that is,
the Antichristian kingdom, as before explained, shall be DIVERSE from
the ten kingdoms, out of which it shall arise[200]. “But a kingdom may
be _diverse_ from other kingdoms, in various respects.” Without doubt.
And, therefore, we cannot certainly conclude from this single text,
that the _diversity_, mentioned, will consist in its being a spiritual
kingdom. Yet, if ye reflect that this _diversity_ is given, as the
characteristic mark of the Antichristian kingdom; that, although there
may be other and smaller differences between kingdoms, the greatest and
most signal is that which subsists between a temporal and spiritual
power; nay, that Government, as such, is, and can only be, of two
sorts, civil and spiritual, as corresponding to the two constituent
parts of _man_, (the subject of all government in this world,) the Soul
and the Body: Taking, I say, these considerations along with you, ye
cannot esteem it a very harsh and violent interpretation, if, without
looking any farther, we incline to think that this _diversity_ of
regimen, so emphatically pointed out, respects that great and essential
difference in human government, _only_. At least, it will be admitted,
that, if, from other and more express testimonies, the government of
Antichrist appear to be a spiritual government, we shall, then, be
authorized to put such a construction on Daniel’s prophecy, as will
reach the full force and import of his expression. Such a kingdom must
be allowed to be eminently _diverse_ from secular kingdoms. So that
the harmony between the prophets on this subject will be clear and
striking.

Now, such a testimony we seem to find in the Apostle, St. Paul; who,
prophesying of _the man of Sin_, or Antichrist, to be revealed in the
latter days, makes it a distinguishing part of his character, _That
he_ SITTETH IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD[201]. Consider the force of these
words. A power, _seated in the temple of God_, can be nothing but a
power suitable to that place, or a _spiritual_ power: just as a power,
_seated in the throne of Cæsar_, could only be interpreted of a _civil_
power.

Nor say, because the context runs thus—“that he, AS GOD, sitteth in
the temple of God, SHEWING himself that he IS GOD—that therefore it
only means his claiming _divine honours_: a degree of blasphemy, very
applicable to a _civil_ power.” This objection has clearly no force:
because his _sitting in the temple of God_ was the very _means_ (if
we rightly apply this prophecy) by which the man of sin rose to that
abominable pre-eminence. It was by virtue of his _spiritual_, that he
assumed a _divine_ character. So that the phrase—_as God_—and that
other—_shewing himself that he is God_—sets before us, indeed, the
extravagant height to which the man of sin aspired, and to which he
ascended; but, no way invalidates the conclusion from his sitting in
the temple of God—that he was a _spiritual power_. Rather, we see
the propriety of this conclusion: because the text, thus understood,
suggests the _way_ in which the man of sin accomplished his blasphemous
purpose: His _success_ arose, from his _station_ in the temple. On
the other hand, a power _sitting in the throne of Cæsar_, might sit
there _as God_, and might _shew himself that he was God_ (as many of
the Roman Emperors did:) So that the clause—_sitting in the temple of
God_—has evidently no peculiar fitness, as applied to the usurpation
of divine honours by a _civil tyrant_; whereas we see it has that
fitness, when applied to a _spiritual_ tyrant. The context therefore
proves nothing against the interpretation, here proposed and defended.

But, what is this _temple of God_? The temple at Jerusalem, it will be
said; the only temple, so called, then subsisting in the world[202].
Admit this to be the literal sense of the words. Yet ye remember so
much of what hath been said concerning the prophetic style, as not to
think it strange, that the literal sense should involve in it another,
a _mystical_ meaning. And this, without any uncertainty whatsoever.
For so, the term, _Jew_, means a _Christian_; the term, _David_, means
_Christ_; the _incense_ of the temple-service, means the _prayers_
of Christians; plainly and confessedly so, in numberless instances.
Agreeably to this analogical use of Jewish terms, in the style of the
prophets, _the temple of God_, nay _the temple of Jerusalem_[203] (if
that had been the expression) must, in all reason, be interpreted of
the _Christian church_, and could not, in the prophetic language, be
interpreted otherwise. When, therefore, Antichrist is said to _sit in
the temple of God_, it is the same thing as if it had been said of
him, _That he sitteth_, or ruleth, _in the church of Christ_. Now,
substitute these words—_the church of Christ_—in the room of those
other words—_the temple of God_; and see, if St. Paul, supposing his
purpose had been to express a spiritual power in opposition to a civil;
see, I say, if St. Paul could have conveyed that purpose more plainly.

Still, we have another, and, if possible, a more decisive testimony
in the _Revelations_. For, among the different views, which St. John
gives us of Antichrist, in so many distinct visions, one is set before
us in the following manner—_And I beheld another beast coming up out
of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a
Dragon_[204]. Now, if we had known nothing more of these symbols, than
what the obvious qualities of the animals themselves suggested to us,
we could only have inferred, that this ruling power (for that is the
idea conveyed by the term, _Beast_) would put on the appearance of a
gentle and pacific administration: I say, the _appearance_; for what
its _real_ character was to be, is clearly enough expressed in what
follows, that this lamb-like beast _spake as a Dragon_. But, when we
further reflect, that _horns_, in the prophetic style, are the emblems
of _power_, and that a _Lamb_ is the peculiar, the _appropriated_
symbol of Christ, _the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world_[205], and is constantly so employed throughout this whole
prophecy of the Revelations, we must, of necessity, conclude that
_a beast with the horns of a lamb_ can only be a state or person,
pretending to such powers, as Christ exercised, and his Religion
authoriseth; that is, powers, _not of this world_, but purely spiritual.

The other symbol of a _Dragon_, confirms this conclusion. For a
_Dragon_, in the prophecies, is the known symbol of the old Roman
Government in its pagan, persecuting state. When, therefore, it is said
that the beast _spake as a Dragon_, the meaning is, That Antichrist
should assume the highest tone of civil authority in promoting his
tyrannous purposes, though he cloked his fierce pretensions under the
meek semblance of a spiritual character. Taken together, these two
symbols speak as plainly, as symbolic terms can speak, That Antichrist
was to be a _religious person_, acting in the spirit of a _secular
tyrant_. So exactly is he characterised by the poet Mantuan, addressing
himself to one of the Popes—

    _Ense_ potens _gemino_, cujus vestigia adorant
    Cæsar et aurato vestiti murice reges.

On the whole, I leave it to be considered, whether, when the prophecies
pronounce of Antichrist, that he should be, a power _diverse_ from all
others—that he should _sit in the temple of God_—and that he should
have _the horns of a lamb_—I leave it, I say, to your consideration,
whether it be not plain that this extraordinary power, a Roman power,
and residing at Rome, was to be a _Christian and Ecclesiastical_, and
not a _Pagan and Civil_ power.

IV. Another obvious character of Antichrist, or rather, _complication_
of characters, is that triple brand, impressed upon him, of a
_tyrannical, intolerant, and idolatrous_, power.

The prophets hold him up to us, as _reigning_, or exercising an
oppressive and supereminent dominion, _over the kings of the earth_,
that is, of the Western empire[206]; as _making war with the lamb, and
the saints who receive not his mark in their foreheads_[207], that is,
persecuting good and conscientious Christians, who refuse to wear the
badge of Antichrist, and to serve under him; and, as another _Babylon,
the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth_[208], that is,
as polluted himself with the grossest idolatry, and as corrupting the
nations with the same prophane worship.

But these marks, it will be said, have been found upon so many powers,
which have appeared in the world, that they cannot be given as the
_distinctive_ marks of _one_, that is, of the Papal Power: Nay, the
Bishop of Meaux goes further, and attempts to shew, by a very refined
argument, that the very _terms_ of _whoredom_ and _fornication_, in
which the _last_ of these marks, I mean, IDOLATRY, is set forth by the
prophet in the _book of Revelations_, make it impossible for us to
apply that mark to Rome Christian.

Let us see, then, _first_, what force there is in the criticism of this
learned Prelate.

That _whoredom_, or _fornication_, in the language of scripture, means
_idolatry_, is agreed on all hands, and cannot be disputed: Whether the
figurative use of this term arose from observing, how constantly that
pollution attended idolatrous worship; or how fitly a communication
with false gods may be compared with that unlawful commerce: Whatever
be the ground of the analogy, it is clear to a demonstration that
_whoredom_ is but another name for _idolatry_, which, under this idea,
is very frequently charged upon the Jews by the ancient prophets.

Sometimes, however, (without doubt, to aggravate the charge) the
idolatry of the Jews is considered in the light of _adultery_, that is,
of infidelity to the God of Israel; to whom, as to her proper Lord and
_Husband_, the Jewish nation had, by express stipulation, and in the
most solemn manner, contracted herself.

But, notwithstanding this promiscuous application of the terms,
_fornication_, and _adultery_, to the idolatry of the Jews in the
ancient prophecies, it hath been remarked by the Bishop of Meaux, “That
Babylon, or Rome, in the Revelations, is constantly and uniformly
spoken of, as a _whore_, and not as an _adulteress_: whence he
concludes, that this charge is brought against Pagan Rome only, and not
Christian Rome. For, why, he asks, is so much care taken not to impute
_adultery_ to idolatrous Rome, if it had been a Christian city? when
its polluting itself with this crime, contrary to the most express
engagements, which Christians take upon themselves, of fidelity to the
only true God, might justly deserve, and, in propriety, may seem to
require, this opprobrious charge, rather than that other lighter one
of _fornication_; whereas, if Pagan Rome be here meant, its idolatry
could only be set forth under the idea of _fornication_, and not of
_adultery_[209].”

Now, although, as I observed, the idolatrous Jews are frequently
treated by their prophets, as _fornicators_, as well as _adulterers_,
nay, are much more frequently[210] represented under the _former_
idea, than the _latter_; and although it be therefore true, that
_fornication_ is not necessarily, and exclusively, to be understood of
Pagan idolatry, but may well be applied to Christian idolaters, as it
was to the Jewish; yet the force of the learned objector’s argument
will not be obviated by this observation only. For the stress of it
lies in this, “That the idolatry of Rome in the Revelations is _every
where_, that is, purposely, termed _fornication_ (to insinuate to us,
that the charge is directed against a Pagan City, and not a Christian
Church), and _no where_, that is, purposely again, called _adultery_.”

The objection is extremely ingenious; and, so far as I know, hath
been, hitherto, unanswered. Yet, if any good reason can be assigned
why the prophet should thus studiously prefer the term, _fornication_,
to that of _adultery_, in describing the idolatry of Christian Rome,
notwithstanding those terms be used indifferently by the Jewish
prophets, when they reprove the idolatry of their own countrymen, the
Bishop of Meaux would himself acknowledge, that his objection falls to
the ground.

Now such a reason offers itself to us in the EMBLEM, under which St.
John chuses to represent his idolatrous society. This emblem is,
_Babylon_; a Pagan idolatrous city; to which the idea of _fornication_
may be colourably, and hath, in fact, been, applied[211], in order
to express the transgression of the law of nature, in its idolatrous
worship: But to such a city, _adultery_, could in no proper sense, be
applied; because, it had never entered into any close engagement, or
_marriage-contract_, as it were, with the God of heaven.

This being admitted, we see the reason, why Rome Christian is taxed
as a _whore_ simply, and not as an adulteress. For what had been
improperly said of the _type_, cannot, on the principles of decorum,
be transferred to the _anti-type_. If Babylon be only a _harlot_,
she is a harlot still, and nothing more, when she stands for Rome,
whether Pagan, or Christian. The concinnity of the figure, and the
just correspondence of the thing signified to the sign, demands the
observance of this rule; which cannot be violated without manifest
absurdity and confusion.

“But why then, it is asked, was such an emblem employed? Why was not
Jerusalem, or Samaria (of which _adultery_ might be predicated) rather
chosen, than Babylon, for the type, or representation of _idolatrous
Christian Rome_?”

The reason, again, is obvious. It was, because Babylon was the _first_
of all idolatrous cities; and the _fittest_[212] to emblematize the
enormous guilt, or to set in full light the extensive influence, of
idolatrous Rome. For each, in its turn, was _the mother of harlots and
abominations of the earth_; the _former_ corrupting the _heathen_ world
with her fornication, and the latter, the _Christian_.

When therefore for this, or the like reason, Babylon was made the
emblem of Christian Rome, the prophet was obliged to retain the idea of
fornication, only, and not to interpose that of adultery, through the
whole tenour of his application.

It may, further, be worth observing, that _pagan_ idolatry is, for the
most part, exposed by the ancient prophets under the notion of LYES,
or LYING VANITIES[213]; and very rarely, I think in no more than one
or two short passages, under that of _fornication_. For vague lust was
so generally practised in the heathen world, and the law of nature,
condemning that vice, so little known, or respected by it, that the
metaphor would not have conveyed to a Pagan idolater the atrocious
nature of his crime. The Mosaic Law, on the other hand, interdicting
fornication in the severest terms, and requiring that _there should be
no whore of the daughters of Israel_[214], the guilt of idolatry was
very forcibly, as well as naturally, represented to a Jew, under that
idea.

Accordingly, we find, that the prophets every where, and in whole
pages, employ this figure, when they address themselves to Jewish
idolaters. Whence it may seem, that, although there be sufficient
authorities to justify the prophet St. John in considering his
emblematic Babylon under the idea of a _harlot_, yet he would not
have prosecuted even this inferior charge of _fornication_ so far as
he has done, and in so many parts of his prophecy, if his purpose had
not been to apply it to a _believing_, and not a Pagan city. If the
mystical Babylon be _Christian_ Rome, we see the force and propriety of
this representation; which had clearly been less apt, if Pagan Rome,
according to the Bishop of Meaux, had been intended by the prophet.

We see then, in both ways, why Rome is not an _adulteress_ in the
Revelations; and why she is so emphatically, a _harlot_. The type
employed forbad the _former_ charge, though the anti-type be _Rome
Christian_: The _latter_ charge had not been so much laboured, if the
anti-type had been _Rome Pagan_.

Thus, the edge of this acute objection is entirely taken off, and the
execution, it was to make on the Protestant system, prevented.

To return, now, to the consideration of our _three_ marks. These
marks, it is said, agree to so many other powers, besides that of
the Papacy, that they cannot be made the peculiar, distinctive
characters of Christian Rome. And, without doubt, considered merely
in themselves, they cannot. But, having already understood that the
power, thus stigmatized, is a power seated in the _seven-hilled_ city,
and that too, an _ecclesiastical_ power, one sees clearly that, if the
prophecies have hitherto received their accomplishment in any degree,
these marks can only be sought in Papal Rome, and must be the proper,
exclusive characters of that power. I say, _one sees this_; but, it
must be owned, not without amazement, That a species of government,
calling itself Christian, and professing to model itself on the example
of the _Lamb_, on the pure and simple principles of the Gospel, should
yet be all over stained with those specific vices, which Christianity
most abhors—the utmost pride of secular domination—the most
relentless zeal against the rights of conscience—and, what is still
more incredible, the most blasphemous idolatry. The accumulated infamy
of these crimes struck the prophet, St. John, so forcibly, that, on the
sight of this portentous monster, exhibited to him in the vision, _he
wondered_, as himself expresses it, _with great admiration_[215].

But, strange as this vision appeared to the sacred _prophet_, the Papal
history is found to realize all the wonders of it: And, backward as we
may be to interpret this vision of a church, professedly Christian,
that church herself is so little scandalized at the imputation of these
crimes, that she is ready to avow them all; the _two first_, directly
and openly; and the _last_, when set in a certain light, and explained
in her own manner. In short, she prides herself in the _extent of her
sway_[216], and the _fire of her zeal_[217], and only quibbles with us
about the meaning of the term, _idolatry_.

To cut the matter short, then, and to keep clear of those endless
debates concerning the worship of _Images_, of the _Cross_, and of
the _Host_ in the celebration of the Mass; debates, which a dextrous
sophist may find means to carry on with a shew of argument, and with
some degree of plausibility; To set aside, I say, all these topics,
let it be observed, at once, That _idolatry_, in the scriptural sense
of the word, is of _two sorts_, and consists either, 1. in giving the
honour due to the one true God, as maker and governor of the world, to
any other supposed, though subordinate god; Or, 2, in giving the honour
due to Christ, as the sole mediator between God and Man, to any other
supposed, though subordinate, mediator. The _former_, is the idolatry
forbidden by the Jewish law, and by the law of Nature: The _latter_,
is Christian idolatry, properly so called, and is the abomination,
prohibited and condemned, in so severe terms, by the law of the Gospel.

Now, whether the _former_ species of idolatry be chargeable on the
church of Rome or not; and whether the _crime_ of that species, may not
be incurred by honouring the true object of worship, through the medium
of some sensible image: Whatever, I say, be determined on these two
points (which, for the present, shall be set aside) the _other_ species
of idolatry is, without all doubt, chargeable on any Christian church
that shall adopt or acknowledge, in its religious addresses, another
mediator, besides Christ Jesus.

But the church of Rome (I do not say, in the private writings of her
divines, but) in the solemn forms of her ritual, _publicly professes_,
and, by her canons and councils, _authoritatively enjoyns_, the worship
of saints and angels, under the idea of mediators and intercessors: not
indeed in exclusion of Christ, as _one_, or, if you will, as _chief_
mediator, but in manifest defiance of his claim to be, the _sole_
mediator. This charge is truly and justly brought against that Church,
as it now stands, and hath stood, for many ages; and cannot, by any
subterfuge whatsoever, be evaded[218]. And therefore, to the other
characters of _Pride_ and _Intolerance_, which she takes to herself
with much complacency, she must, now, be content (whether she will or
no) to have that of DÆMON-WORSHIP, or ANTICHRISTIAN IDOLATRY, fastened
upon her.

Nor let the followers of that communion think to elude this charge, by
saying, _That they only request the saints, as we commonly do any good
man, to pray for them_[219]. False and disingenuous! _False_; because
their breviaries and litanies shew, that they supplicate the saints
to befriend them by their own inherent power, or to intercede for
them to the throne of God by virtue of their own personal merits[220],
in blasphemous derogation to the all-atoning and incommunicable
intercession of Jesus. _Disingenuous_, too; because they know very
well, that the question is concerning unseen and heavenly mediators
only, not men like ourselves, such as we live and converse with on
earth; whom we only admonish of their duty, and to whom we only do
ours, when we call upon them to exert an act of piety and common
charity in praying for their fellow-christians. Our meaning is but that
which the Apostle well expresses, when he would have us _consider one
another, to provoke unto love and to good works_[221]; and not at all
to supplicate our Christian brethren as powerful intercessors, in whose
meritorious virtues we confide, and to whom, as possessing a proper
interest in the Almighty, by the worth of their own persons, we commit
our dearest concerns, The forgiveness of our sins, and the salvation of
our souls.

“But this, it will be said, is a very defective, and even unfair,
account of the matter. We do more than admonish our brethren of their
duty, when we sollicit their prayers for us. We invite them directly,
and formally, to _intercede_ for us to the throne of Grace. We are
allowed, nay encouraged, to lay a stress on their intercession; and,
what is more, we are given to understand that such intercession,
especially if it be made by good men, will have weight and influence in
Heaven. What else is the meaning of the Apostle, when he assures us,
_That the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much_.
James v. 16.? And, if the prayer of _a righteous man_, much more the
prayer of glorified saints and angels.”

I have put the argument, I think, in all its force, and (because the
advocates of the papal cause affect to think it unanswerable) shall
examine it, with care.

“We apply to good Christians, or to those we esteem such, to intercede
for us by their prayers to Heaven.” We do so; and are encouraged in
this application, by the _example_, and by the _directions_ of the
Apostles. For I shall not take advantage of what some have conceived to
be the meaning of St. James, in the place alledged, where he attributes
so much to the prayer of, a righteous man, That the prayer, there
spoken of, is _the prayer of faith_, or a spiritual gift miraculously
conferred on the first teachers of the Gospel, and confined to their
ministry: I will not, I say, take advantage of this gloss; because,
whatever foundation it may seem to have in the context of that epistle,
I allow it to be clear from other places of the New Testament[222],
That the duty of Christians is to pray, that is, to _intercede_, for
each other.

But then I desire it may be observed,

1. What difference there is between desiring good men to pray for
us, in the Gospel sense of that duty; and desiring Saints and Angels
to pray for us, in the sense of the papal rituals. We request those
prayers, only as they shall be offered up in the name, and through the
merits, of the great, and properly speaking, sole intercessor; and we
look for no effect from them, but on that condition. The Church of
Rome addresses herself to Saints and Angels, as _intercessors_, by,
what we may call, their own right, by virtue of their own inherent
sanctity: Or, rather, she applies to them directly, as to _Saviours_,
for their proper and immediate help, and expects it from the supposed
privilege of their rank, or merits, independently of their _prayers_,
or, at least, of the _manner_ in which those prayers shall be presented
through the name of Jesus. The formal words of their Litanies shew,
that such is their meaning.

But they will say, that this condition of interceding, or saving,
through the merits of Christ, is implied, though not expressed. I reply
then,

2. That, admitting it to be so, there is, yet, the widest difference
between _praying_ to Saints and Angels to pray for us, though in the
Gospel forms of intercession; and merely _requesting_ good men to pray
for us, in those forms. The _latter_ address is made in a way remote
from all appearance of idolatry, and free from the suspicion of it:
The _former_, is preferred in the _place_, at the _time_, with the
_posture_, in the _language_, in short, with all the circumstances and
formalities of divine worship.

3. I observe, that, when we ask the prayers of men, we know that they
hear our address to them: We cannot even suppose thus much of Saints
and Angels, without ascribing to them the incommunicable attributes of
the Almighty.

Still, it may be insisted, That prayers, whether offered up to God by
men, or glorified spirits, are however to be considered in the light of
_Intercessions_; and that therefore, so far as we combat the practice
of saint-worship on that ground, Protestants, as well as Papists, when
they employ the prayers of others, are guilty of idolatry.

This, in truth, is the hinge, on which the question turns: And, to shew
the difference of the two cases, palpably and clearly, I say,

Fourthly, and lastly, That the Gospel, in permitting, or rather in
commanding us to ask the prayers of each other, justifies this sort of
intercession, and absolves it from the blame and guilt of idolatry. It
gives a sanction to this mode of mediating with God by his Saints, on
earth; and does not regard it as a practice that interferes with the
mediatorial office of Jesus, in Heaven.

The same Gospel, on the contrary, (I inquire not, for what reasons)
says not a word, from which we can infer, that any such address is
directed, or permitted, to be made to Angels or Spirits. It even
condemns all addresses of this kind, under the opprobrious name of
unauthorized, or WILL-WORSHIP[223]. Though we be allowed, then, to
have good men, in some sense, for our mediators or intercessors on
earth, we are not allowed to have any mediator or intercessor in the
tabernacle of heaven, but Jesus, the great high priest of Christians,
only. This last sort of intercession, by Angels and glorified Saints,
is against the spirit and letter of our religion. It is a practice,
which, not being enjoined, is forbidden; which, being disallowed, is
reprobated. In a word, It entrenches on the incommunicable honour and
prerogatives of the great, the appointed, the sole Mediator in Heaven,
seated at God’s right hand, _who ever liveth to make intercession for
us_[224]. It sets up new mediators, without, and against his leave: It
is, then, un-christian, and _idolatrous_.

Thus at length, I suppose, it appears indisputably, That we are neither
unreasonable, nor uncharitable, in charging IDOLATRY, as well as the
other two anti-christian vices of _pride_, and _intolerance_, to the
account of papal Rome.

V. The last prophetic mark of Antichrist, which I shall have time to
point out to you, and what perhaps you may esteem the most material of
all, is, _The_ TIME _in which that power is said to make its appearance
in the world_.

It hath been already observed[225], that the _chronology_ of the
prophecies is, for the most part, not defined with that exactness,
which we expect in historical compositions. It is commonly expressed
in terms that may be interpreted with some latitude; or, when the date
is more precisely delivered, we are still at a loss, in some respect
or other, before the event, in what manner to form our calculation.
However, the expression is not so loose and vague, but that we may
clearly apprehend _about_ what time the predicted event will come to
pass.

Thus, for instance, the season of Christ’s _coming into the world_ was
fixed by such circumstances as these—that it should be before the
total dissolution of the Jewish state—or while the second temple was
yet standing: And, when it was determinately foretold to be after the
expiration of _seventy weeks, from the going forth of the commandment
to return and to build Jerusalem_, still, besides the prophetic and
somewhat obscure sense of the word _weeks_, we cannot beforehand
calculate exactly _when_ these weeks commence[226], or in what term
they are to be accomplished. Yet, notwithstanding these uncertainties,
the Jews saw very clearly, and, from them, the rest of the world
conceived an expectation, that the person predicted was to appear in
that age, or _about_ that time, in which he did appear, and which, from
the tenour of the prophecies, they had computed would be the time of
his appearance.

In like manner, the season of Antichrist’s appearance in the world is
left to be collected from general intimations; and, when the duration
of his tyranny is limited to _twelve hundred and sixty days_, besides
that the expression, as before, is ænigmatical, we have no means of
fixing the commencement of that period so precisely, but that some
doubts may arise about it, till the accomplishment of the prophecy
shall give light and certainty to the computation. Yet still, as in the
former case, we have such _data_ to proceed upon in calculating the
reign of Antichrist, as may let us see _about_ what time it was to be
expected.

Thus much being premised, I have now only to remind you of what the
prophets expressly declare concerning the rise of Antichrist. The
eldest of these, the prophet Daniel, says it was to be in the time of
the _fourth_ kingdom, that is, of the Roman; which, for the convenience
of the prophetic calculations, is considered as subsisting, though
in a new form, under the ten kings, among whom it was to be divided.
He further tells us, that Antichrist was to arise from _among_, and
_after_, the ten kings; that is, we are to look for him _then_,
(and not before) when the Roman empire has undergone that change of
government[227].

Next, St. Paul, it seems, had told the Thessalonians, what it was
that, for a time, prevented the appearance of Antichrist: But that
information hath not been transmitted to us. However, he says to
them—_Ye know_ WHAT _with-holdeth that he might be revealed in his
time_: and further adds, HE, _who now letteth, will let, until he be
taken out of the way_[228].

Now, by putting these passages together, and by comparing them with
the predictions of Daniel, not we of these later times only, before
whom _the man of sin_ is supposed to be evidently displayed, but the
early fathers of the church, long before the events happened to which
these prophetic notices could be applied, clearly saw, or at least
generally conjectured, that the impediment, here mentioned, was the
then subsisting power of the Cæsarean government; which, they said, was
first to be taken away, and then Antichrist would be revealed[229].

Lastly, the Apostle St. John not only confirms the prophecies of
Daniel, that Antichrist should arise out of the ten kings, who were to
have the western empire shared out among them, but adds this remarkable
circumstance, That he should RIDE the ten kings[230]; which implies,
that he should _co-exist_ with them: And it further appears, that
he was to receive his whole power from them, and was finally to be
destroyed by them.

Now, turn to the history of the _fourth_ kingdom, and see how it
corresponds to these prophecies. Observe, when the western empire under
its Cæsarean head, was taken away; how it was, afterwards, dismembered
by the northern nations; by what degrees it fell at length, into _ten_,
that is, _many_ distinct, independent kingdoms; at what time this
partition was made, or rather fully settled and completed. From this
time, and not before, you are to look for Antichrist, now gradually
rearing himself up among the ten kings; and at length, in a condition,
by the power, which they gave to him, to _ride_, that is, to direct
and govern them. From this time, again, compute the 1260 years, the
predicted period of his government; and, keeping your eye all along on
the ecclesiastical and civil state of our western world (the predicted
theatre of all these transactions) see, if you can help concluding,
I do not say at what precise time, but _about_ what time, Antichrist
appeared; see, if the _commencement_ of his reign be not so far
determined as that you may be certain of its being long since past; and
see, if very much, at least, of that allotted _period_, through which
his dominion was to continue, according to the prophecies, be not, by
the evident attestation of history, now run out.

To DRAW, then, what hath been said on the several marks of Antichrist,
to a point. Consider, within _what part_ of the world, he was to
appear; in _what seat_ or throne, he was to be established; of _what
kind_, his sovereignty was to be; with _what attributes_, he was to be
invested; in _what season_, or _about what time_, and for _how long
a time_, he was to reign and prosper: Consider these FIVE obvious
characters of Antichrist, which the prophets have distinctly set
forth, and which, from them, I have successively held up to you: And,
then, compare them with the correspondent characters, which you find
inscribed, by the pen of authentic history, on a certain power, sprung
up in the West; seated in the city of Rome; calling himself the Vicar
of Christ; yet _full of names of blasphemy_, that is, stigmatized with
those crimes, which Christianity, as such, holds most opprobrious,
the crimes of tyrannic dominion, of persecution, and even Idolatry;
and lastly, now subsisting in the world, though with evident symptoms
of decay, after a long reign, whose rise and progress can be traced,
and whose duration, hitherto, is uncontradicted by any prophecy: Put,
I say, all these correspondent marks together, and see if they do
not furnish, if not an absolute demonstration, yet a high degree of
probability, that apostate papal Rome is the very Antichrist foretold.

At least, you will admit that these correspondencies are signal enough
to merit your attention, and even to justify your pains in looking
further into so curious and interesting a subject. Ye will say to
yourselves, That the prophecies concerning Antichrist deserve at least
to be considered with care, since in so many striking particulars, they
appear, on the face of them, to have been completed.

This _conclusion_, it is presumed, is a reasonable one: And the end of
this discourse will be answered, if ye are, at length, prevailed upon
to _draw_ this conclusion.




SERMON XII.

USES OF THIS INQUIRY INTO THE PROPHECIES.

REV. xxii. 7.

_Behold, I come quickly: Blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the
prophecy of this book._


Before we engage in a work of time and difficulty, we naturally ask,
“CUI BONO, to what considerable end and purpose, are our labours to be
referred?”

Although it may, then, be presumed, that enough hath been said on the
prophecies to excite a reasonable desire of looking further into them,
and even to produce a general persuasion, that they have been, or may
be, understood; yet, it may quicken your attention to this argument,
and support your industry in the prosecution of it, to set before you
the USES, which may result from a full and final conviction (if such
should be the issue of your inquiries), That these prophecies are not
intelligible only, but have, in many instances, been rightly applied,
and clearly fulfilled.

These USES are very many. I shall collect, only, _two or three_ of the
more important, for your consideration.

Though every period of prophecy be instructive, that which takes in the
great events and revolutions, which have come to pass in the _Christian
Church_, is, for obvious reasons, more especially interesting to us,
who live in these latter ages of the world.

Of the numerous predictions, contained in either Testament, which,
it is presumed, respect these events, the most considerable by far,
because the most minute and circumstantial, are those of St. John in
the _Revelations_; which treat professedly of such things as were
to befall _the servants of Jesus_[231], from the prophet’s own days,
down to that awful period, when all the mysterious councils of God,
in regard to the Christian dispensation, shall be finally shut up in
the day of judgment. To these predictions, then, a more particular
attention is due, the rather because they have been fulfilling from
the time of their delivery—_behold, I come quickly_—and, above all,
because a _blessing_ is pronounced on those, who keep, that is, who
observe, who study and contemplate, _the sayings of this book_.

Assuredly, then, this study will be rewarded with signal benefits. And
one sees immediately:

I. In the first place, that no small benefit must arise to those, who
admit the completion of these prophecies, so far, I mean, as the tenour
of the book makes it probable that they have been completed, _from
the awful sense, which this conviction must needs give them of the
Christian dispensation itself_.

That this dispensation, ushered in by so long a train of prophecies,
should still be attended by others, through all the stages and
periods of it; that secular empires should rise and fall, unnoticed,
as it were, by the Spirit of God, while the kingdom of his Son is
so peculiarly distinguished, and its whole history, in a manner,
anticipated, by the most express predictions: that Jesus should be,
as he says of himself, _the alpha and omega, the beginning and the
end_[232], of all God’s religious dispensations to mankind: that
his _first coming_, or personal appearance in the flesh, should be
signified from the foundation of the world, and from time to time more
explicitly declared in a variety of successive prophecies, till the
great event, at length, fulfilled them all: and that, together with
this event (the foundation of others, still more illustrious) his
_second coming_, in the future and gradual manifestations of his power
(for they were to be _gradual_) should be distinctly marked out, and
duly accomplished, in the fortunes of the Christian church, or of that
kingdom, which he came to erect in the world; while this subject, and
no other, engaged the ultimate attention of all the prophets: There
is, I say, in this scheme of things, something so astonishingly vast,
something so much above and beyond the attention that was ever known
to be paid to any other person or thing in the compass of universal
history, as must strike an awe into the hearts of all men, who consider
Christianity in this point of view; and must compel the most negligent
to confess, or suspect at least, That _such_ a dispensation is a matter
of no light moment, but, indeed, the most important in the eyes of
Providence, and the most interesting to mankind, that can be conceived,
or expressed.

If, then, there be reason, to _admit_ the completion of such
prophecies, respecting such a subject, in any considerable number
of instances, within that space of time which is already elapsed;
and, therefore, to _expect_ that the remaining prophecies will, in
like manner, be fulfilled, The conclusion is, that the dispensation
of God through Christ is of the last consequence to the inhabitants
of this world: And the obvious _use_ of this conclusion will be,
that it further obliges all serious men who have thus far profited
by a study of the sacred oracles, to put that salutary question
to themselves—_How shall we escape, if we neglect so great
salvation[233]?_

Connected with _this_ use of prophecy,

II. A _second_ is, That it sets before us, not the importance only, but
the _truth_ of Christianity, in the strongest light.

So many illustrious events falling in, one after another, just as the
word of prophecy foretold they should, must afford the most convincing
proof, That our Religion is, as it claims to be, of divine institution:
a _proof_, the more convincing, because it is continually growing upon
us; and, the farther we are removed from the source of our religion,
the clearer is the evidence of its truth. Other proofs are supposed to
be, and, in some degree, perhaps, are, weakened by a length of time.
But this, from prophecy, as if to make amends for their defects, hath
the peculiar privilege of strengthening by age itself: till hereafter,
as we presume, the accumulated force of so much evidence shall
overpower all the scruples of infidelity; and bring about, at length,
that general conversion both of Jew and Gentile, which the sacred
oracles have so expressly foretold.

In both these ways, then, by impressing on the mind the most affecting
sense of Christianity; that is, by giving us, _first_, the most _awful
view of its pretensions_, and _then_, by producing the _firmest
conviction of its truth_, the word of prophecy hath an evident
tendency, in proportion as we see its accomplishment, to promote the
great ends, for which it was given, till _the earth shall be filled
with the knowledge of the Lord_, and _all the inhabitants of the world
shall learn righteousness_[234].

These uses are general, and concern _all_ men: The

III. _Next_, I shall mention, is more especially addressed to
_thinking_ and inquisitive men.

When the view of things, exhibited under the two preceding articles,
has raised our admiration, to the utmost, of the divine councils in
contriving, preparing, and at length executing so vast a scheme, as
that of Christianity, for the benefit of mankind; we are led to expect
that the _effect_ will correspond to the _means_ employed, and that a
striking change will, at length, be brought about in the condition of
the moral world.

But, in surveying the history of this new religion, the theme of so
many prophecies, and the great, the favourite object, if I may so
speak, of divine Providence, “some are not a little scandalized to
observe that nothing hath come to pass in any degree equivalent to
such an expence of forethought and contrivance; that, for a season,
indeed, virtue and piety seemed to triumph, in the exemplary lives of
the first converts to this religion, and in the overthrow of Pagan
idolatry; but that this golden age was soon over; and that, now, for
more than fourteen hundred years, the passions of men have kept their
usual train, or rather have expatiated with more licence and fury in
the Christian world, than in the Pagan; that _idolatry_, in all its
forms, has revived in the bosom of Christianity; and, as to _private
morals_, that this Religion has even made men worse than it found them,
or, at best, of corrupt sensualists, has only made them intolerant and
vindictive bigots; that, in a word, the _kingdom of heaven_, as it is
called, has, hitherto, neither served to the glory of God, nor to the
good of mankind; at least, to neither of these ends, in the _degree_,
that might have been expected from such high pretensions.”

The colouring of this picture, we will say, is too strong: but the
outline, at least, is fairly given. The corruptions of the Christian
world have been notorious and great; and though they are indeed the
corruptions of men calling themselves Christians, and not the vices of
Christianity, yet he who the most dispassionately contemplates so sad
a scene, can hardly reconcile appearances to what must have been his
natural expectations.

Here, then, the prophecies of this book, I mean, of the Apocalypse,
come in to our relief. This book contains a detailed account of
what would befall mankind under this last and so much magnified
dispensation. It foretells all that history has recorded. It sets
before us the corrupt state of the Christian world in almost as strong
a light, as that in which our indignant speculatist himself has placed
it. But it, likewise, opens better things to our view. It shews, that
the _end_ of this dispensation is to promote virtue and happiness; and
that this end shall finally, but through many and long obstructions,
be accomplished. It represents the cause of righteousness, as still
maintaining itself in all the conflict, to which it is exposed; as
gradually gaining ground, and prevailing, through the secret aid of
divine Providence, over all opposition, till it obtains a firm and
permanent establishment; till _the Saints reign_ (not in a fanatical,
but in the sober and evangelical sense of that word, _reign_) _in the
earth_[235]; till _the Lord God omnipotent reigneth_[236].

So far, then, as these prophecies appear to have been completed,
they reconcile us to that disordered scene, which hath hitherto been
presented to us; and give repose to the anxious mind, in the assured
hope of better things to come. The worst, that has _happened_, was
foreseen; and the best, that we _conceive_, will hereafter come to
pass. Thus, the reasonable expectations of men are answered, and the
honour of God’s government abundantly vindicated.

IV. The _last_ use, I shall suggest to you, is that which immediately
results from the study of the Apocalyptic prophecies _concerning
Antichrist_; I mean, _the support that is hereby given to Protestantism
against all the cavils and pretensions of its adversaries_.

For, if these prophecies are rightly applied to Papal Rome, and have,
in part, been signally accomplished in the history of that church, it
is beyond all doubt, that our communion with it is dangerous; nay, that
our separation from it is a matter of strict duty. _Come out of her, my
people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not
of her plagues_[237]—are plain and decisive words, and, if allowed to
be spoken of that church, bring the controversy between the Protestant
and Papal Christians to a short issue.

I know, the advocates of Rome pretend, that, not a sense of duty, but
a _spirit of revenge_ operates in the minds of Protestants, when they
affect to lay so great a stress on the Apocalyptic prophecies. “_Reward
her, even as she rewarded you_[238]”—is, they say, another of their
favourite texts, by which they take themselves to be as much obliged,
as by that which they so commonly alledge for quitting her communion.
It is not, therefore, to cover themselves from the imputation of
schism, but to authorize the vengeance, they meditate against us, that
we are stunned with the cry of Antichrist and Babylon[239].”

To this charge, I can only reply, That, if any Protestant writers
have put that sense on the words—_reward her, as she rewarded
you_—they must answer for their own temerity and indiscretion. They,
who understand themselves, and the language of prophecy, disclaim the
odious imputation. They say, That they neither admit the lawfulness
of persecution in any case, on the account of religion, nor have the
least thought of instigating the Christian world to any sanguinary
attempts against the Papacy. What the _event_ may be in the councils
of Providence, is another consideration: But they neither avow, nor
approve those principles, which tend to produce it. They, further,
insist, That the two passages under consideration, though, both of
them, expressed in the _imperative_ form, require a very different
construction: That the language of prophecy _seems_ very often to
authorise what it only foretells; and to command that which it
barely permits: that, therefore, the sense of such passages is to be
determined by the circumstances of the case; that, where obedience
is lawful, there the _preceptive_ form may be admitted; but, where
it is not, there nothing more is intended than the certainty of the
_event_: That this distinction is to be made in the present case; for
that Christianity doth not allow vindictive retaliations, or _holy
wars_, for the sake of religion, and that offensive arms taken up in
the cause of God (how confidently soever some have justified their
zeal by the authority of the Jewish Law, ill-applied) are abominable
and _antichristian_: Whence we rightly conclude, that—_reward her, as
she rewarded you_—are words not to be taken injunctively; while those
other words—_come out of her, my people_—expressing nothing but what
it was previously our duty to do, are very clearly to be so taken.

Lastly, We say, that the context in the two places alledged, justifies
this distinction. _Come out of her, my people._ Why? _That ye be not
partakers, of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues._ The
reason is just, and satisfactory. _Reward her._ Why? No reason is
assigned, or could be assigned consistently with the spirit of the
Christian religion: It only follows, _as she has rewarded you_—words,
which express only the _measure_, and the _equitable grounds_ of the
allotted punishment, not the _duty_ of Christians to inflict it.

I return, then, from the confutation of this cavil (the most plausible,
however, as well as invidious, which the wit of Rome has started on
this subject) to the conclusion, before laid down, That the completion
of the Apocalyptic prophecies in the Papal apostasy, if seen and
confessed, affords an unanswerable defence and vindication of the
Protestant churches.

This conclusion, that THE POPE IS ANTICHRIST, and that other, that THE
SCRIPTURE IS THE SOLE RULE OF CHRISTIAN FAITH, were the _two_ great
principles, on which the Reformation was originally founded. How the
_first_ of these principles came to be DISGRACED _among ourselves_,
I have shewn in another discourse[240]. It may now be worth while to
observe, in one word, through what fatal mismanagement the _latter_
principle was even _generally_ DISAVOWED and DESERTED.

When the Reformers had thrown off all respect for the Papal chair, and
were for regulating the faith of Christians by the sacred scriptures,
it still remained a question, _On what grounds, those scriptures should
be interpreted_. The voice of the church, speaking by her schoolmen,
and modern doctors, was universally, and without much ceremony,
rejected. But the Fathers of the primitive church were still in great
repute among Protestants themselves; who dreaded nothing so much as
the imputation of novelty, which they saw would be fastened on their
opinions, and who, besides, thought it too presuming to trust entirely
to the dictates of what was called _the private spirit_. The church
of Rome availed herself with dexterity, of this prejudice, and of the
distress to which the Protestant party was reduced by it. The authority
of these ancient and venerable interpreters was sounded high by the
Catholic writers; and the clamour was so great and so popular, that the
Protestants knew not how, consistently with their own principles, or
even in mere decency, to decline the appeal which was thus confidently
made to that tribunal. The Reformers, too, piqued themselves on
their superior skill in ancient literature; and were ashamed to have
it thought that their adversaries could have any advantage against
them in a dispute, which was to be carried on in that quarter. Other
considerations had, perhaps, their weight with particular churches:
But, for these reasons, chiefly, all of them forwardly closed in with
the proposal of trying their cause at the bar of the ancient church:
And, thus, shifting their ground, maintained henceforth, not that
the scriptures were the sole rule of faith, but the scriptures, _as
interpreted by the primitive fathers_.

When the state of the question was thus changed, it was easy to see
what would be the issue of so much indiscretion. The dispute was not
only carried on in a dark and remote scene, into which the people
could not follow their learned champions; but was rendered infinitely
tedious, and, indeed, interminable. For those early writings, now to be
considered as of the highest authority, were voluminous in themselves;
and, what was worse, were composed in so loose, so declamatory, and
often in so hyperbolical a strain, that no certain sense could be
affixed to their doctrines, and any thing, or every thing, might, with
some plausibility, be proved from them.

The inconvenience was sensibly felt by the Protestant world. And, after
a prodigious waste of industry and erudition, a learned foreigner[241],
at length, shewed the inutility and the folly of pursuing the contest
any further. In a well-considered discourse, _On the use of the
Fathers_, he clearly evinced, that their authority was much less, than
was generally supposed, in _all_ points of religious controversy;
and that their judgment was especially incompetent in _those_ points,
which were agitated by the two parties. He evinced this conclusion by
a variety of unanswerable arguments; and chiefly by shewing that the
matters in debate were, for the most part, such as had never entered
into the heads of those old writers, being, indeed, of much later
growth, and having first sprung up in the barbarous ages. They could
not, therefore, decide on questions, which they had no occasion to
consider, and had, in fact, never considered; however their careless or
figurative expression might be made to look that way, by the dextrous
management of the controversialists.

This discovery had great effects. It opened the eyes of the more candid
and intelligent inquirers: And our incomparable Chillingworth, with
some others[242], took the advantage of it to set the controversy
with the church of Rome, once more, on its proper foot; and to
establish, for ever, the old principle, THAT THE BIBLE, and that only,
(interpreted by our best reason) IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS.

Thus, ONE of the two pillars, on which the Protestant cause had been
established, was happily restored. And, though Mr. Mede, about the
same time, succeeded as well in his attempts to replace the OTHER,
yet, through many concurring prejudices, the merit of that service
hath not, hitherto, been so generally acknowledged. Whether _the Pope
be the Antichrist of the prophets_, is still by some Protestants made
a question. Yet, it seems as if it would not continue very long to be
so: And it may not be too much to expect, that this institution will,
hereafter, contribute to put an end to the dispute.

The Reformation will, then, be secured against the two invidious
charges of SCHISM and HERESY (for _neither_ of which is there any
ground, if _the Pope be Antichrist_, and if _the sole Rule of faith
to a Christian be the canonical scriptures_) and will, thus, stand
immoveably on its ancient and proper foundations.

In saying this, I do not, however, mean to assert, that the Reformation
has no support, but in this principle—_that the Pope is Antichrist_.
There are various other considerations, which are decisive in the
controversy between us and the Papists. So that, if the prophecies
should, after all, be found to suit any other person or power, better
than the Roman Pontif, we shall only have one argument the less to
urge against his pretensions, and the Protestant cause, in the mean
time, stands secure. But, on the supposition that the prophecies are
rightly, and must be exclusively, applied to the church of Rome (of
which every man will judge for himself, from the evidence hereafter to
be laid before him) on this supposition, I say, it must be allowed that
the shortest and best defence of the Protestant cause is that which is
taken from the authority of those prophecies, because they expressly
enjoin a separation from that society, to which they are applied.

Ye perceive, then, in all views, the utility of studying this prophecy
of the _Revelations_, provided there be reason to admit the completion
of it in the history of the Christian Church, and particularly in the
history of Papal Rome. The _importance_ and the _truth_ of Christianity
will be seen in their full light—The _wisdom_ of the divine councils,
in _permitting the Apostacy to take place for a time_, will be
acknowledged—And the _honour_ of our common _Protestant profession_
will be effectually maintained.


  CONCLUSION.

This Lecture is now brought down to that point, from which, possibly,
ye expected me to set out. But, in the entrance on an argument, new
to many persons, and misunderstood by most, it seemed expedient to
take a wide compass. The true _scriptural idea_ of the subject, was
to be opened, at large[243]; the _general argument_ from prophecy,
enforced[244]; the _method_ of the prophetic system deduced, and
further illustrated in a view of the prophecies more immediately
respecting the Christian church[245]; Of _these_ prophecies, those
concerning _Antichrist, or the apostasy of Papal Rome_, were to be
cleared of all prejudices and objections[246]; and the _principles_, on
which the _Apocalyptic_ prophecies, in particular, are to be explained,
proposed and justified[247]: It was, further, necessary to bespeak
your attention to the _argument_ from the Apocalyptic prophecies,
especially, concerning Antichrist, by shewing the several presumptions
there are of its _force_[248]; and by setting before you the _uses_,
to which this whole inquiry may be applied[249].

This preliminary course, then, though it has been tedious, will not
be thought improper, if it may serve, in any degree, to prepare and
facilitate the execution of the main design, which is, _To interpret
and apply particular prophecies_: A work, of labour indeed; but not
unpleasant in itself; and (if carried on with that diligence and
sobriety, which are, in reason, to be supposed) capable, I think, of
affording to fair and attentive minds the fullest satisfaction.

The SEASON, I know, may be thought unfavourable to such an attempt.
For the main stress must be laid on prophecies, about which Christians
themselves are not agreed, at a time when the number of those persons
is supposed to be very great, and increasing every day, who are not
easily brought to acknowledge the reality of _any_ prophecies.

This _last_ would be an unwelcome consideration, if the fact were
certain; I mean, if the present state of religion were altogether
such as some, perhaps, wish, and as others too easily apprehend, it
to be. But I hope, and believe, it is not; the truth of the case, so
far as I am able to form a judgment of it, being no more than this.
A few fashionable men make a noise in the world; and this clamour,
being echoed on all sides from the shallow circles of their admirers,
misleads the unwary into an opinion, that the irreligious spirit is
universal and uncontroulable. Whereas, the good and wise, are modest
and reserved: having no doubt themselves concerning the foundation of
their faith, they pay but little regard to the cavils, which empty or
corrupt men throw out against it. They either treat those cavils with a
silent contempt; or, they lament in secret the libertinism of the age,
without taking any vigorous measures to check and oppose it. Besides,
they rarely come into what is called, _free company_; and they are too
well employed, and at the same time too well informed, to hearken after
every idle publication, on the side of irreligion.

For these, and the like reasons, the number of true believers is
overlooked; or thought to be less considerable than, in fact, it is,
and would presently be known to be, if a just estimate were taken of
them.

Let me then, under this persuasion, express myself in the spirit, and
almost in the words, of an ancient apologist[250]—“Let no man too
hastily despair of the cause, we are now pleading. When we stand up in
its defence, there are those who will lend an ear to us. For, whatever
the vain, or the vicious may pretend, the prophetic writings are not
fallen so low in the esteem of mankind, but that there are numberless
persons of good sense and serious dispositions, who wish to see the
truth of the Gospel confirmed by them; and are ready to embrace that
truth, when fairly set before them, and supported by the clear evidence
of historical testimony and well-interpreted scripture.”

Such is the language, which I am not afraid to hold to the desponding
party among us. But should my confidence, or my candour, transport me
too far, should even _their_ apprehensions be ever so well founded, the
zeal of those, who preach the Gospel, is not to abate, but to exert
itself with new vigour under so discouraging a prospect. If there be a
way left to strike conviction into the hearts of unbelievers, it must
probably be, by pressing this great point of prophetic inspiration, and
by turning their attention on a _miracle_, now wrought, or ready to be
wrought before their eyes. Or, let the event be what it will, our duty
is to illustrate the word of prophecy, and to enforce it; to withstand
the torrent of infidelity with what success we may, and, if it should
prevail over all our efforts, to make full proof, at least, of our
sincerity and good will.

In the mean time, it becomes all _others_ to retain and cultivate in
themselves a respect for the prophetic writings; which either are, or,
for any thing that has yet appeared, may be divine. To treat them,
without the fullest conviction of their falshood, with neglect and
scorn, is plainly indecent, and may be highly criminal and dangerous.

Josephus tells us, that, in the last dreadful ruin of his unhappy
countrymen, it was familiar with them, _to make a jest of divine
things, and to deride, as so many senseless tales and juggling
impostures, the sacred oracles of their prophets_[251]; though they
were then fulfilling before their eyes, and even upon themselves.

But the case, perhaps, is different; and _we_ have no concern, in the
prophecies concerning Papal Rome.

What! Have WE no concern in those prophecies (supposing, I mean, that
they are prophecies, at all, and, that there is reason for applying
them to the church of Papal Rome). WE, who have but just been delivered
from the more than Egyptian bondage, which they predict; and are,
therefore, bound by every tye of interest, of gratitude, and of
charity, to assert to ourselves, and to communicate to others, as far
as we are able, the blessings of _that liberty, wherewith Christ has
made us free_[252]. Have WE no concern in the several _uses_, mentioned
in this discourse; and in many others, which I have not mentioned; it
being well known, that _all inspired scripture_ (of which prophecy
is so eminent a part) _is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness_[253]?

Or, supposing that we had no _direct_ concern in these prophecies,
and supposing, farther, that the divine authority of them was even
_problematical_; still it may deserve to be considered, I mean, by
men the most libertine, who have not yet convinced themselves, by an
exact and critical inquiry, of their utter falshood and insignificancy;
I say, it merits the reflexion of all such, That the _contempt_ of
the prophecies, under these circumstances, has a natural tendency
to corrupt the temper and harden the heart. And is there no room to
question, whether this conduct, plainly an _immoral_ conduct, be
adviseable or safe?

Let us then, on a principle of _self-love_, if not of piety, _keep
the sayings of this book_, concerning THE MAN OF SIN. From many
appearances, the appointed time for the full completion of them may
not be very remote. And it becomes our prudence to take heed that we
be not found in the number of those, to whom that awful question is
proposed—_How is it, that ye do not discern the signs of this time?_

Nay, there are prophecies, which, in that case, may concern us
more nearly, than we think. St. Paul applied ONE of these, to the
unbelieving Jews; of whose mockery, and of whose fate, ye have heared
what their own historian witnesseth: And, if _we_ equal their obdurate
spirit, _that_ prophecy may clearly be _applied_, and no man can say,
that it was not _intended_ to be applied, to _ourselves_.

_Beware therefore_ (to sum up all in the tremendous words of the
Apostle[254]) _Beware, lest that come upon you, which is spoken by the
Prophets_: BEHOLD, YE DESPISERS, AND WONDER AND PERISH; FOR I WORK A
WORK IN YOUR DAYS, A WORK, WHICH YE SHALL IN NO WISE UNDERSTAND, THOUGH
A MAN DECLARE IT UNTO YOU.




APPENDIX.




APPENDIX:

CONTAINING

AN ANONYMOUS LETTER

TO THE AUTHOR OF THESE SERMONS,

WITH HIS ANSWER TO IT.


Soon after I had published this volume, I received an anonymous Letter,
addressed to me at Thurcaston, of which the following is an exact copy.


LETTER TO DR. HURD.

SIR,

Some months ago it was reported, that Dr. Hurd was preparing to expound
the Apocalypsis, and once more to prove the Pope to be Antichrist. The
public were amazed. By the gay and by the busy world, the very attempt
was treated as an object of ridicule. Polite scholars lamented, that
you should be prevailed on to give up your more solid and liberal
studies, for such obscure and unprofitable researches. Your own
brethren of the church hinted, that it would be far more prudent to
observe a respectful silence with regard to those awful and invidious
mysteries. A more than common share of merit was requisite to surmount
such adverse prejudices. Your Sermons, Sir, have been perused with
pleasure by many, who had the strongest dislike to the name and
subject. Every one has admired the vastness of the plan, the harmony
of the proportions, and the elegance of the ornaments; and if any have
remarked a weakness in the foundations, it has been imputed to the
nature of the ground; and the taste of the Patron has been arraigned
rather than the skill of the Architect.

Since you have undertaken the care and defence of this extensive
province, I may be allowed, less as an opponent than as a disciple,
to propose to you a few difficulties; about which I have sought more
conviction than I have hitherto obtained. From the general cast of your
writings, I flatter myself that I am speaking to a candid critic, and
to a philosophical divine; whose first passion is the love of truth. On
this pleasing supposition, let me venture to ask you, “_Whether, there
is sufficient evidence that the Book of Daniel is really as ancient as
it pretends to be._” You are sensible, that from this point the Golden
Chain of Prophecy, which you have let down from Heaven to earth, is
partly suspended.

There are two reasons which still force me to with-hold my assent.
I. The author of the Book of Daniel is too well informed of the
revolutions of the Persian and Macedonian empires, which are supposed
to have happened long after his death. II. He is too ignorant of
the transactions of his own times. In a word, he is too exact for a
Prophet, and too fabulous for a contemporary historian.

I. The first of these objections was urged, fifteen hundred years ago,
by the celebrated Porphyry. He not only frankly acknowledged, but
carefully illustrated the distinct and accurate series of history,
contained in the book of Daniel, as far as the death of Antiochus
Epiphanes; for beyond that period, the author seems to have had no
other guide than the dim and shadowy light of conjecture. The four
empires are clearly delineated, the expedition of Xerxes into Greece,
the rapid conquest of Persia by Alexander, his untimely death without
posterity, the division of his vast monarchy into four kingdoms,
one of which, Egypt, is mentioned by name, their various wars and
intermarriages, the persecution of Antiochus, the prophanation of the
Temple, and the invincible arms of the Romans, are described with as
much perspicuity in the prophecies of Daniel, as in the histories
of Justin and Diodorus. From such a perfect resemblance, the artful
infidel would infer, that both were alike composed after the event.
This conduct has supplied St. Jerom with a fund of learning, and an
occasion of triumph; as if the philosopher, oppressed by the force
of truth, had unwarily furnished arms for his own defeat. Yet,
notwithstanding Jerom’s confidence, and in spite of my inclination to
side with the father, rather than with the adversary of the church; the
reasoning of the latter may I fear be justified by the rules of logic
and criticism.

May I not assume as a principle equally consonant to experience, to
reason, and even to true religion; “That we ought not to admit any
thing as the immediate work of God, which can possibly be the work of
man; and that whatever is said to deviate from the ordinary course of
nature, should be ascribed to accident, to fraud, or to fiction; till
we are fully satisfied, that it lies beyond the reach of those causes?”
If we cast away this buckler, the blind fury of superstition, from
every age of the world, and from every corner of the globe, will invade
us naked and unarmed.

The eager trembling curiosity of mankind has ever wished to penetrate
into futurity; nor is there perhaps any country, where enthusiasm
and knavery have not pretended to satisfy this anxious craving of
the human heart. These self-inspired prophets have strove by various
arts to supply the want of a divine mission. Sometimes adapting their
conjectures to the present situation of things, and to the passions and
prejudices of those, for whom their oracles were intended, they have
involved themselves in the mystic veil of dark, general, and ambiguous
metaphors: and embracing an indefinite space, they have trusted to
time and fortune for the accomplishment of their predictions, or to
the industry of kind commentators for a favourable interpretation of
them. Sometimes they have commenced prophets, and even true prophets at
a very easy rate, by delivering the narrative of things already past
under the name of some celebrated character of a distant age. As the
series of events gradually unfolds itself, those which the supposed
ancient could have read only in the book of fate, are transcribed by
the more enlightened modern from any common history.

Virgil (the example is innocent and unexceptionable) has left us
specimens of both these prophetic arts: I have often wondered at the
rashness of critics who have tryed to ascertain the subject of the
fourth Eclogue, and to point out the wonderful infant, the restorer
of a golden age. That modest and judicious Poet would not surely have
risked the smallest part of his reputation, on the miscarriage of a
woman, or the precarious life of a child. The picture is richly, nay
profusely coloured; but the design is traced with so vague a pencil,
that it might adapt itself to any events or to any interpretation;
that it might equally suit a literal or an allegorical sense; the son
of Pollio, of Antony, or of Augustus; the restoration of liberty, or
the tranquillity of the world under one master. Far different are the
prophecies delivered to Æneas concerning the fate and fortunes of his
descendants. The Trojan hero is indulged with a full and distinct view
of the most remote futurity; and the visionary prospect is closed
by the mournful apparition of a youth, who would have rivalled the
greatest of his ancestors, had not the gods envied _such_ virtues to
Rome and to mankind.

From this single remark, we should think ourselves authorized to
infer, that Virgil lived in the Augustan age; and that the sixth
book was composed during the yet recent grief for the loss of young
Marcellus. The Poet indeed meant not to deceive us: like the author of
the Persian Letters, or of the Moral Dialogues, his only aim was to
convey important truths under the pleasing cover of fiction. But had
Virgil seriously pretended, that his sketch of the Roman history was
a faithful transcript from an old Sibylline oracle; had Augustus from
motives of policy favoured the deceit, and had the Romans adopted it
with religious respect; would any man of sense want better evidence of
the pious fraud, than the very clearness and precision of the prophecy?
The unanimous judgment passed on the yet extant collection of the
Sibylline Oracles affords an easy answer to this question. Every critic
who has observed that their prophetic light ceases with the reign of
Hadrian, has pronounced them without hesitation to be a forgery of that
period.

However, as no Christian can dispute the reality of Divine Inspiration,
nor any philosopher deny the possibility of it; the suspicion, that a
prophecy too clear and precise was composed after the event, though
extremely strong, is capable of being removed by still stronger
positive evidence. Without insisting on any fanciful or impracticable
conditions, we have (I think) a right to expect, that the existence of
such a prophecy prior to its accomplishment should be proved, by the
knowledge of it being generally diffused amongst an enlightened nation,
previous to that period; and its public existence attested, by an
unbroken chain of authentic writers. Till such evidence is produced, we
may fairly sit down in a calm and well-grounded scepticism.

I have endeavoured to form something like this chain of witnesses
in favour of the Book of Daniel; but without being able to carry it
higher than the first century of the Christian æra. Josephus seems
to expatiate with pleasure on the praises of that great man; whose
character, in some instances, he proposed as a model for his own. He
celebrates the various merit of Daniel, as a statesman, a prophet, and
even as an architect. His prophetic writings (says Josephus) which are
still extant, evince his familiar intercourse with the Deity, and
his perfect knowledge of futurity. He even possessed some material
advantages above the rest of his inspired brethren; not contented
with declaring future events, he ascertains the time when they were
to happen; and instead of announcing calamities, he is most commonly
the messenger of good news. The rise and fall of successive empires so
clearly described and so punctually accomplished, ought to convince
the disciples of Epicurus, that human affairs, instead of being left
to the blind impulsion of chance, are pre-ordained by an all-directing
Providence. Nothing can be desired fuller or more honourable for Daniel
than this testimony of the Jewish historian. I am only concerned that
he did not publish his Antiquities till the ninety-third year of the
Christian æra; two hundred and fifty-seven years after the death of
Antiochus Epiphanes, and more than six centuries later than the time,
in which the Prophet is supposed to have flourished.

II. The Book of Daniel is partly of the prophetic and partly of the
historic kind. With the account of his visions, the author mixes the
memoirs of his life; which lies the more open to our inspection, as it
was spent, not like those of the other Prophets in caves and deserts,
but in the courts of princes and the great transactions of the world.
Three incidents are more particularly mentioned: that he was educated
with many other captive youths, among the Eunuchs of Nebuchadnezzar;
that he was promoted by that prince to the government of Babylon for
the interpretation of a dream; and that, under the reign of Darius the
Mede, he was appointed the first of the three ministers or vizirs of
the empire; and was soon after exposed to the most imminent danger,
by the malice of his enemies, the impudence of his sovereign, and
his own pious constancy. To the first of these incidents I am so far
from forming any objection, that it seems to me, in the true style
of the oriental customs in war and government. But the two last are
embarrassed with difficulties, from which I have not been able to
extricate myself.

1. Although the most unfrequented paths have sometimes conducted the
favourites of fortune to wealth and honours: yet I much doubt, whether
any man has been appointed a great officer of state for his skill in
divination. In the time of Chardin, the Persian astrologers possessed
as much credit at the court of the Sophis, as the Chaldeans could
possibly obtain in that of Babylon; and both king and people paid
the most implicit obedience to their predictions. Two astrologers
constantly attended the Royal Person; nor was any measure adopted,
however trifling or however important, without the previous sanction
of these ministers of fate; who cost the state annually above four
millions of French money. But notwithstanding they were thus highly
favoured and respected, they were still confined within their own
province; nor is there any instance of the Sovereign chusing his
ministers, his generals, or his judges, amongst that class of men; the
best qualified, as it should seem, for action, since they were the best
acquainted with the consequences of their actions. The common sense
of mankind has constantly preferred the mere human accomplishments of
courage, capacity, and experience. The Roman augurs indeed presided
in the senate, and led forth the armies of the common-wealth; but in
this single exception, the sacerdotal was grafted on the political
character. The first citizens, after rising gradually through the
honours, and great offices of their country, were at length admitted to
play the most powerful engine of the aristocracy.

2. I am disposed to believe that the subsequent merit of Daniel might
justify the Monarch’s caprice. I will allow, (on the credit of the
story of Susanna and the elders) that there never was a Judge of hands
more clean, or of a more discerning eye; and that, in his ministerial
capacity, he was ever attentive to the public interest, and careless of
his own. I cannot deny, that Daniel, as a favourite, as a stranger, and
as an honest man, must have the whole court of Babylon for his enemies;
and am very sensible, that in the administration of a great empire,
the purest virtue and the most shining abilities may afford room for
misrepresentation and calumny. How often must the great Sully have
yielded to those arts of courts, had he not possessed a sure resource
in the sound understanding and generous heart of his friend and
master! The situation of the Jewish and of the Huguenot Minister were
somewhat similar. Both were issued from an oppressed race of obstinate
sectaries; and it might be deemed a very artful contrivance to invent
some test, which must force them to relinquish their place, or their
principles; to forfeit the favour of their prince, or the confidence of
their party. Thus far the comparison is tolerably exact. But the French
ministers were well assured that the fate and innocence of Sully would
be left to the common order of providence. The courtiers of Darius must
apprehend, that the piety of Daniel would be asserted by a miraculous
interposition. The people of Babylon, not many years before, had beheld
the wonderful deliverance of Daniel’s friends from the fiery furnace;
and it would have been a strange project for these crafty statesmen, a
second time to provoke the jealous God of Israel, to exalt the glory of
their enemy, and to draw down destruction on their own heads.

This age indeed, to whom the gift of miracles has been refused, is
apt to wonder at the indifference with which they were received by
the ancient world. Instead of the instant terror, lasting conviction,
and implicit obedience, we might rationally expect; the Jews as well
as the Gentiles conducted themselves, as if they neither remembered
nor believed the miracles to which they were witnesses. Although the
hand of the Almighty was almost perpetually employed in tracing out
those divine characters; they were no sooner formed, than they were
obliterated from the minds of men. It may possibly be alledged, that
faith was distracted by the multiplicity of false as well as of genuine
miracles; whilst even the patrimony of the Lord was encompassed by
rival deities.

            ——Who from the pit of hell,
    Roaming to seek their prey on earth, durst fix
    Their seats long after next the seat of God;
    Their altars by his altar; Gods ador’d
    Among the nations round; and durst abide
    Jehovah thund’ring out of Sion, thron’d
    Betwixt the Cherubim——

But this solution is more proper, I am afraid, to aggravate than to
alleviate the pressure of the difficulty. Counterfeit money may pass
current with the true; since both are coined by human hands and human
industry: But I have always considered Salmoneus imitating Jove’s
thunder by rattling with a brazen chariot over a brazen bridge, as the
most contemptible legend in the whole compass of the Grecian mythology.

3. The law of the Medes and Persians is represented as a constitutional
sanction, which put it out of Darius’s power to revoke his rash
edict. Such legal restraints are the natural offspring of free
governments; but ill suit with the genius of Asiatic despotism. From
the inaccessible solitude of a seven-fold palace the king of the Medes
disposed without controul of the lives and property of his subjects:
nor does there exist a more dreadful act of authority, than the
retaliation inflicted by Darius on Daniel’s enemies; who, to the number
of a hundred and twenty, were cast, with their wives and children, into
the den of lions. If the Persians enjoyed any degree of freedom among
their mountains, they became at the same time slaves and conquerors;
and a formal determination of their judges stands recorded by
Herodotus. “That it was lawful for the king to do whatever he pleased.
There are indeed some instances, where a wise despot will check
himself, and a foolish one will find himself checked by the nature of
things. Such institutions as are derived from Divine authority, ancient
custom, or general opinion, cannot be shaken without endangering the
foundations of his own throne. But it would be truly unaccountable,
that his cooler reason should not be permitted to correct the passion
or surprize of a moment; and that the occasional declarations of
his pleasure should not be annihilated by the same authority, which
produced them. May I not assert, that the Greek writers who have so
copiously treated of the affairs of Persia, have not left us the
smallest vestige of a restraint, equally injurious to the monarch, and
prejudicial to the people?”

4. The edict of Darius, “that during thirty days, whosoever should
ask any petition of either god or man, save only of the king, should
be cast into the den of lions,” implied an almost total suspension
of religious worship; which consists much more in prayer than in
thanksgiving. Such an extraordinary interdict, by depriving the people
of the comforts, and the priests of the profits of religion, must have
diffused a general discontent throughout his empire; which might easily
have been inflamed into sedition and civil war. With what colours
could the ministers of Darius gloss over a measure big with every
mischief, and destitute of the smallest advantage? In what language
could they address themselves to the reason, or even to the passions
of their Sovereign; who is described to be of an advanced age, and a
lover of justice and moderation? But is there any character, which,
with the utmost latitude of supposition, may account for this edict?
An irreligious prince may be indiscreet enough to treat with ridicule
whatever is held sacred by his subjects; but he will entertain too
great a contempt both for the people, and for popular superstition,
ever to think of forcibly separating them from each other. The bigot is
actuated by a warmer principle than the infidel; but his attachment
to his own mode of worship rises in proportion to his hatred of all
others. Had Darius, as a disciple of Zoroaster, shut up the temples
of the idolaters, he would have directed the fires of the Magi to
have blazed with redoubled ardour. Even those tyrants who, destitute
of human virtues, have aspired to divine honours, have grafted their
pretensions on the established religions. To be seated between Castor
and Pollux, to obtain the embraces of the Moon, to confer with Jupiter
of the Capitol, and to place his image in the temple of Jerusalem,
would have gratified the wildest ambition of Caligula. But to suspend
during thirty days the most universal propensity of mankind, is a
strain of wanton despotism unparalleled in the history of the world;
for the interdicts of the Popes were of a quite different nature.
They were not the arbitrary prohibitions of a temporal monarch; but a
chastisement, inflicted by the vicegerent of Christ, who excluded the
offenders from the benefits of Christianity, till they had satisfied
the Deity, offended in the person of his ministers.

5. There yet remains a stronger, or at least a more palpable objection,
against the veracity of the author of the book of Daniel: “The high
probability that Darius the Mede never existed; or, what amounts to
the same, that no prince of that name or nation reigned at Babylon,
between the time of Nebuchadnezzar and that of Cyrus.” It would be to
little purpose to expatiate on the uncertainty of ancient history,
and the careless vanity of the Greek writers. The outlines of the
history of Babylon are known to us with uncommon precision. The Canon
of Ptolemy contains the stories of its kings, deduced from authentic
records, attested by astronomical observations, and confirmed by the
fragments of Berosus, which are still extant in Josephus. Berosus
describes the conquests and buildings of Nebuchadnezzar, and only omits
to mention the metamorphosis of that monarch into an ox. His three
immediate successors, were of his own family; the fourth, Nabonadius,
was a Babylonian raised to the throne by the conspirators who murdered
his predecessor; and cast down from it by the victorious arms of Cyrus
king of Persia. In this close series of the Babylonian and Persian
dynasties, there cannot be found the smallest interval, which will
admit a Median prince.

Of the various expedients devised to elude this difficulty, there is
one only which can deserve our notice; both as the most tolerable in
itself, and as having been embraced by the chronologists of the most
distinguished merit and reputation; by Usher, Prideaux, Sir Isaac
Newton, &c. In their extreme distress, the Cyaxares of Xenophon offered
himself to their imagination, as the properest person to support the
character of Darius the Mede. For this purpose, they have supposed
that he reigned two years over the Babylonian empire; after it had
been subdued by the arms of Cyrus, his nephew and his lieutenant. Such
is their hypothesis, which falls to the ground if the Cyropædia is a
romance; and is overthrown by it, should that noble performance be
received as a genuine history.

1. Without insisting on the opinion of Plato and Tully, I would
rather appeal to your own feelings; as I cannot doubt your familiar
acquaintance with the writings of the Attic Bee. Compare the Anabasis
with the Cyropædia; and _feel_ the difference between truth and
fiction; between the lively and copious variety of the one, and the
elegant poverty of the other. A few general incidents, thinly scattered
through a diffuse work, and destitute of any notes of geography or
chronology, compose the life of Cyrus; which seems lost in a multitude
of speeches, councils, reflections, and familiar episodes. Xenophon
was a philosopher and a soldier; and if we unravel with any care the
fine texture of the Cyropædia, we shall discover in every thread the
Spartan discipline and the philosophy of Socrates. The only part
which has the air of real history, is the judicious digression, where
Xenophon compares the degeneracy of the modern Persians with the wise
institutions of their founder. He possessed the best opportunities of
examining both the one and the other, whilst he served in the camp
of the younger Cyrus, and traversed, with the immortal ten thousand,
the greatest part of the provinces of Artaxerxes. The first Cyrus was
confessedly a great man. The conquest of Asia is a sufficient testimony
of his abilities; and the name of Father given him by the Persians
after his death, must stand as the surest evidence of his virtues. But
the hero of the Cyropædia is drawn as a _perfect character_; a monster
as fabulous, and less interesting than those of Ariosto. His wise
councils are never, in a single instance, seduced by passion, misled by
error, or disappointed by accident. Xenophon labours to establish the
empire of prudence; his countryman Herodotus had entertained himself
with displaying the tyranny of fortune; and both writers, whilst they
inculcate the moral precept, seem alike, though by opposite paths, to
deviate from historic truth.

2. But if the Cyropædia be admitted as a genuine history, Darius the
Mede is still excluded from the throne of Babylon, since Cyaxares
himself never ascended it. When the Cyrus of Xenophon besieged that
great city, he had gradually shaken off all dependance on his uncle,
and assumed to himself the supreme command, and exclusive advantages of
the war. The strength of his army consisted of seventy thousand natural
Persians, solely attached to their hereditary prince, from every motive
of duty, gratitude, and interest. He was followed by a various train of
nations, allies and subjects, all subdued by his arms and policy. About
forty thousand Medes, who served under his banners, had long since been
taught to despise the weakness, and to disobey the commands of their
sovereign. After the conquest, Cyrus was solemnly inaugurated king of
Babylon, with every circumstance of pomp and greatness, which could
dazzle the eyes of the multitude. Some time afterwards he visited his
uncle at Ecbatana, presented him with rich gifts, the spoils of Asia,
accepted his only daughter in marriage, and very politely told the King
of the Medes, that he had set apart for him, one of the finest palaces
of Babylon; that whenever he should chuse to come to that city, he
might find himself, _as if he were still in his own dominions_.

If these observations are founded in truth and nature; it will
follow, that the author of the Book of Daniel has entertained us with
incredible stories, which happened under an imaginary monarch. So much
error and so much fiction are incompatible with an inspired, or even
with a contemporary, writer. But if the prophecies were framed three
or four centuries after the Prophet’s death, it was much easier for
the counterfeit Daniel to _foretel_ great and recent events, than to
compose an accurate history or probable romance of a dark and remote
period.

The question is curious in itself, important in its consequences,
and in every light worthy the attention of a critical divine. This
consideration justifies the freedom of my address, and the hopes I
still entertain, that you may be able and willing to dispell the mist,
that hangs, either over my eyes, or over the subject itself. On my
side, I can only promise, that whatever you shall think proper to
communicate, shall be received with the candor which I owe to myself,
and with the deference, so justly due to your name and abilities,

  I am, Sir,
  with great esteem,
  your obedient humble servant,
                   ——

P.S. You will be pleased, Sir, to address your answer _To Daniel
Freeman, Esq. at the Cocoa Tree, Pall Mall_: but if you have any
scruple of engaging with a mask, I am ready, by the same channel, to
disclose my real name and place of abode; and to pledge myself for the
same _discretion_, which, in my turn, I shall have a right to expect.

       *       *       *       *       *

I had neither leisure nor inclination to enter into controversy with
this stranger (for which there was the less occasion, as he had
disputed no principle or opinion advanced by me in the Sermons); but,
as I knew, whoever he was, that he would complain, or rather _boast_,
of being wholly unnoticed by me, I sent him this answer.


  ANSWER TO THE FOREGOING LETTER.

  _Thurcaston, August 29, 1772._

SIR,

Your very elegant letter on the antiquity and authenticity of the Book
of Daniel (just now received) finds me here, if not without leisure,
yet without books, and therefore in no condition to enter far into
the depths of this controversy; which indeed is the less necessary,
as every thing, that relates to the subject, will come, of course,
to be considered by my learned successors in the new Lecture. For,
as the prophecies of Daniel make an important link in _that chain,
which_, as you say, _has been let down from heaven to earth_ (but not
by the Author of the late Sermons, who brought into view only what he
had found, not invented) the grounds, on which their authority rests,
will, without doubt, be carefully examined, and, as I suppose, firmly
established.

But, in the mean time, and to make at least some small return for the
civility of your address to me, I beg leave to trouble you with two
or three short remarks, such as occur to me, on the sudden, in reading
your letter.

Your main difficulties are these two: 1. That the author of the Book
of Daniel is too clear for a prophet; as appears from his prediction
of the Persian and Macedonian affairs: And 2. too fabulous for a
contemporary historian; as is evident, you suppose, from his mistakes,
chiefly, I think, in the vith chapter.

1. The first of these difficulties is an extraordinary one. For why
may not prophecy, if the Inspirer think fit, be as clear as history?
Scriptural prophecy, whence your idea of its obscurity is taken,
is _occasionally_ thus clear, I mean after the event: And Daniel’s
prophecy of the revolutions in the Grecian empire would have been
obscure enough to Porphyry himself, before it.

But your opinion, after all, when you come to explain yourself, really
is, as one should expect, that, as a prophet, Daniel is not clear
enough: for you enforce the old objection of Porphyry by observing,
That, where a pretended prophecy is clear to a certain point of time,
and afterwards obscure and shadowy, there common sense leads one to
conclude that the author of it is an impostor.

This reasoning is plausible, but not conclusive, unless it be taken for
granted that a prophecy must, in all its parts, be equally clear and
precise: whereas, on the supposition of real inspiration, it may be
fit, I mean it may suit with the views of the Inspirer, to predict some
things with more perspicuity, and in terms more obviously and directly
applicable to the events in which they are fulfilled, than others. But,
further, this reasoning, whatever force it may have, has no place here;
at least, you evidently beg the question when you urge it; because the
persons, you dispute against, maintain, That the subsequent prophecies
of Daniel are equally distinct with the preceding ones concerning the
Persian and Macedonian empires, at least so much of them as they take
to have been fulfilled, and that, to judge of the rest, we must wait
for the completion of them.

However, you admit that the suspicion arising from the _clearest_
prophecy may be removed by direct positive evidence that it was
composed before the event. But then you carry your notions of that
evidence very far, when you require “that the existence of such a
prophecy prior to the accomplishment should be proved by the knowledge
of it being generally diffused amongst an enlightened nation, previous
to that period, and its public existence attested by an unbroken chain
of authentic writers.”

What you here claim as a matter of _right_, is, without question, very
desirable, but should, I think, be accepted, if it be given at all, as
a matter of courtesy. For what you describe is the utmost evidence that
the case admits: but what right have we, in this or any other subject
whether of natural or revealed religion, to the utmost evidence? Is
it not enough that the evidence be sufficient to induce a reasonable
assent? And is not that assent reasonable, which is paid to real
evidence, though of an inferior kind, when uncontrouled by any greater?
And such evidence we clearly have for the authenticity of the book of
Daniel, in the reception of it, by the Jewish nation, down to the time
of Jesus, whose appeal to it supposes and implies that reception to
have been constant and general: Not to observe that the testimony of
Jesus is further supported by all the considerations that are alledged
for his own divine character. To this evidence, which is positive so
far as it goes, you have nothing to oppose, but surmise and conjecture,
that is, nothing that deserves to be called evidence. But I doubt, Sir,
you take for granted, that the claim of inspiration is never to be
allowed, so long as there is a possibility of supposing that it was not
given.

II. In the second division of your Letter, which is longer and more
laboured than the first, you endeavour to shew that the _historical_
part of the book of Daniel, chiefly that of the sixth chapter, is false
and fabulous, and, as such, confutes and overturns the _prophetical_.
What you say on this head is contained under _five_ articles.

1. You think it strange that Daniel, or any other man, should be
advanced to a great office of state, _for his skill in divination_.

But here, first, you forget that Joseph was thus advanced, and for the
same reason: Or, if you object to this instance, what should hinder the
advancement either of Joseph or Daniel (when their skill in divination
had once brought them into the notice and favour of their sovereign)
for what you call _mere human accomplishments_? For such assuredly
both these great men possessed, if we may believe the plain part of
their story, which asserts of Joseph, and indeed proves, that he was,
in no common degree, _discreet and wise_; and of Daniel, that _an
excellent spirit was found in him_, nay that he had _knowledge and
skill in all learning and wisdom_, over and above his _understanding
in all visions and dreams_. In short, Sir, though princes of old might
not make it a rule to chuse their ministers out of their soothsayers,
yet neither would their being soothsayers, if they were otherwise
well accomplished, prevent them from being ministers: Just as in
modern times, though churchmen have not often, I will suppose, been
made officers of state, even by bigotted princes, because they were
churchmen, yet neither have they been always set aside from serving in
those stations, when they have been found eminently qualified for them.

2. Your next exception is, That a combination could scarce have been
formed in the court of Babylon against the favourite minister (though
such factions are common in other courts) because the courtiers of
Darius _must have apprehended that the piety of Daniel would be
asserted by a miraculous interposition_; of which they had seen a
striking instance. And here, Sir, you expatiate with a little too much
complacency on the strange indifference which the ancient world shewed
to the gift of miracles. You do not, I dare say, expect a serious
answer to this charge; Or, if you do, it may be enough to observe,
what I am sure your own reading and experience must have rendered very
familiar to you, that the strongest belief or conviction of the mind
perpetually gives way to the inflamed selfish passions; and that, when
men have any scheme of interest or revenge much at heart, they are not
restrained from pursuing it, though the scaffold and the axe stand
before them in full view, and have perhaps been streaming but the day
before with the blood of other state-criminals. I ask not, whether
miracles have ever _actually_ existed, but whether you do not think
that multitudes have been firmly _persuaded_ of their existence: And
their indifference about them is a fact which I readily concede to you.

3. Your third criticism is directed against what is said of _the
law of the Medes and Persians, that it altereth not_; where I find
nothing to admire, but the extreme rigour of Asiatic despotism. For I
consider this irrevocability of the law, when once promulgated by the
Sovereign, not as contrived to be a check on his will, but rather
to shew the irresistible and fatal course of it. And this idea was
so much cherished by the despots of Persia, that, rather than revoke
the iniquitous law, obtained by surprize, for exterminating the Jews,
Ahasuerus took the part, as we read in the book of Esther, (and as
Baron Montesquieu, I remember, observes) to permit the Jews to defend
themselves against the execution of it. Whence we see how consistent
this law is with the determination of the Judges, quoted by you
from Herodotus—“That it was lawful for the King to do whatever he
_pleased_”—for we understand, that he did not please, that his law,
when once declared by him, should be altered.

You add, under this head, “May I not assert, that the Greek writers,
who have so copiously treated of the affairs of Persia, have not left
us the smallest vestige of a restraint, equally injurious to the
monarch, and prejudicial to the people?” I have not the Greek writers
by me to consult; but a common book I chance to have at hand, refers
me to one such vestige in a very eminent Greek Historian, Diodorus
Siculus. Lowth’s Comm. in loc.

4. A fourth objection to the historic truth of the book of Daniel is
taken, with more plausibility, from the matter of this law, which,
as you truly observe, was very strange for the King’s councillors to
advise, and for any despot whatsoever to enact.

But 1. I a little question whether prayer was so constant and
considerable a part of Pagan worship, as is supposed; and, if it was
not, the prejudices of the people would not be so much shocked by
this interdict, as we are ready to think. Daniel indeed prayed three
times a day: but the idolaters might content themselves with praying
now and then at a stated solemnity. It is clear that when you speak
of _depriving men of the comforts, and the priests of the profits of
religion_, you have Christian and even modern principles and manners
in your eye: perhaps, in the _comforts_, you represented to yourself
a company of poor inflamed Huguenots under persecution; and, in the
_profits_, the lucrative trade of Popish masses. But, be this as it
may, it should be considered, 2. that this law could not, in the
nature of the thing, suppress all prayer, if the people had any great
propensity to it. It could not suppress _mental_ prayer: it could not
even suppress _bodily worship_, if performed, as it easily might be, in
the night, or in secret. Daniel, it was well known, was used to pray
in open day-light, and in a place exposed to inspection from his usual
manner of praying; which manner, it was easily concluded, so zealous
a votary, as he was, would not change or discontinue, on account of
the edict. Lastly, though the edict passed for thirty days, to make
sure work, yet there was no doubt but the end proposed would be soon
accomplished, and then it was not likely that much care would be taken
about the observance of it.

All this put together, I can very well conceive that extreme envy and
malice in the courtiers might suggest the idea of such a law, and that
an impotent despot might be flattered by it. Certainly, if what we read
in the third chapter be admitted, That _one_ of these despots required
all people, nations, and languages to worship his image on pain of
death, there is no great wonder that _another_ of them should demand
the exclusive worship of himself, for a month[255]; nay perhaps he
might think himself civil, and even bounteous to his gods, when he left
them a share of the other eleven. For, as to the presumption—

          ——Nihil est quod credere de se
    Non possit, cui laudatur Diis æqua potestas.

5. A fifth, and what you seem to think the strongest objection to the
credit of the book of Daniel, is, “That no such person, as Darius the
Mede, is to be found in the succession of the Babylonish princes [You
mean, as given in Ptolemy’s Canon and the Greek writers] between the
time of Nebuchadnezzar and that of Cyrus.”

In saying this, you do not forget, nor disown, what our ablest
chronologers have said on the subject: But then you object, that
Xenophon’s Cyaxares has been made, (to serve a turn) to personate
Darius the Mede, and yet that Xenophon’s book, whether it be a romance,
or a true history, overturns the use which they have made of this
hypothesis.

1. I permit myself, perhaps, to be too much flattered by your civility
in referring me to my own taste, rather than to the authority of
Cicero: But the truth is, I am much disposed to agree with you, “that,
if we unravel with any care the fine texture of the Cyropædia, we shall
discover in every thread the Spartan discipline and the philosophy of
Socrates.” But then, as the judicious author chose to make so recent
a story as that of Cyrus, and so well known, the vehicle of his
political and moral instructions, he would be sure to keep up to the
_truth_ of the story, as far as might be; especially in the leading
facts, and in the principal persons, as we may say, of the drama. This
obvious rule of decorum such a writer, as Xenophon, could not fail to
observe: And therefore, on the supposition that his Cyropædia is a
romance, I should conclude certainly that the outline of it was genuine
history.

But, 2. if it be so, you conclude that there is no ground for thinking
that Darius the Mede ever reigned at Babylon, because Cyaxares himself
never reigned there.

Now, on the idea of Xenophon’s book being a romance, there might be
good reason for the author’s taking no notice of the short reign of
Cyaxares; which would break the unity of his work, and divert the
reader’s attention too much from the hero of it: while yet the omission
could hardly seem to violate historic truth, since the lustre of his
hero’s fame, and the real power which, out of question, he reserved
to himself, would make us easily forget or overlook Cyaxares. But, as
to the _fact_, it seems no way incredible, that Cyrus should concede
to his royal ally, his uncle, and his father-in-law (for he was all
these) the _nominal_ possession of the sovereignty—or that he should
_share_ the sovereignty with him—or, at least, that he should leave
the _administration_, as we say, in his hands at Babylon, while he
himself was prosecuting his other conquests at a distance. Any of these
things is supposable enough; and I would rather admit any of them, than
reject the express, the repeated, the circumstantial testimony of a not
confessedly fabulous historian.

After all, Sir, I doubt, I should forfeit your good opinion, if I did
not acknowledge that some, at least, of the circumstances, which you
have pointed out, are such as one should hardly expect at first sight.
But then such is the condition of things in this world; and what is
_true_ in human life is not always, I had almost said, not often, that
which was to be previously expected: whence, an indifferent romance
is, they say, more _probable_ than the best history. But should any
or all of these circumstances convince you perfectly that some degree
of error or fiction is to be found in the book of Daniel, it would be
too precipitate to conclude that therefore the whole book was of no
authority. For, at most, you could but infer, that the historical part,
in which those circumstances are observed, namely the sixth chapter,
is not genuine: Just as hath been adjudged, you know, of some other
pieces, which formerly made a part of the book of Daniel. For it is
not with these collections, which go under the name of the prophets,
as with some regularly connected system, where a charge of falsehood,
if made good against one part of it, shakes the credit of the whole.
Fictitious histories may have been joined with true prophecies, when
all that bore the name of the same person, or any way related to him,
came to be put together in the same volume: But the detection of such
misalliance could not affect the prophecies, certainly not those of
Daniel, which respect _the latter times_; for these have an intrinsic
evidence in themselves, and assert their own authenticity in proportion
as we see, or have reason to admit, the accomplishment of them.

And now, Sir, I have only to commit these hasty reflections to your
candour; a virtue, which cannot be separated from the love of truth,
and of which I observe many traces in your agreeable letter. And
if you would indulge this quality still further, so as to conceive
the possibility of that being _true and reasonable_, in matters of
religion, which may seem strange, or, to so lively a fancy as your’s,
even ridiculous, you would not hurt the credit of your excellent
understanding, and would thus remove one, perhaps a principal, occasion
of _those mists which_, as you complain, _hang over these nice and
difficult subjects_.

  I am, with true respect,
  Sir, &c.
  R. H.

       *       *       *       *       *

I should not perhaps have thought it worth while to print either of
these Letters, if a noble person had not made it necessary for me to
give the _former_ to the publick, by doing this honour (though without
my leave or knowledge) to the _latter_. By which means, however, we
are now at length informed (after the secret had been kept for twice
twelve years) that the anonymous Letter-writer was Edward Gibbon, Esq.
afterwards the well-known author of “The History of the _Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire_[256].”

Of Mr. Gibbon’s Letter to me, I have no more to say: And of his
_History_, only what may be expressed in few words.

It shews him, without doubt, to have possessed parts, industry,
and learning; each in a degree that might have entitled him to a
respectable place among the compilers of ancient history. But these
talents were disgraced, and the fruit of them blasted, by a FALSE TASTE
OF COMPOSITION: that is, by _a raised, laboured, ostentatious style_;
effort in writing being mistaken, as it commonly is, for energy—by _a
perpetual affectation of wit, irony, and satire_; generally misapplied;
and always out of place, being wholly unsuited to the historic
character—and, what is worse, by a _free-thinking libertine spirit_;
which spares neither morals nor religion; and must make every honest
man regard him as a bad citizen, as well as writer.

These miscarriages may, all of them, be traced up to one common cause,
an EXCESSIVE VANITY.

Mr. Gibbon survived, but a short time, his favourite work. Yet he lived
long enough to know that the most and best of his readers were much
unsatisfied with him. And a few years more may, not improbably, leave
him without one admirer.—Such is the fate of those, who will write
themselves into fame, in defiance of all the principles of true taste,
and of true wisdom!

  R. W.

  _Hartlebury Castle, Nov. 18, 1796._


THE END OF THE FIFTH VOLUME.


Printed by J. Nichols and Son,
Red Lion Passage, Fleet-Street, London.


Errata:

P. 365, l. 9. for _two_ read _too_.




FOOTNOTES:

[1] This noble and eminent person was the second son of the Lord
Chancellor Hardwicke. He had been, for many years, in the first
reputation at the Bar; and having passed through the offices of
Sollicitor and Attorney General, was, himself, made Lord Chancellor
in January 1770, but died soon after his appointment to that high
dignity—_Luctuosum hoc suis; acerbum patriæ; grave bonis omnibus_.

[2] The Society _have_ given leave that this Lecture be preached in
their Chapel, and on the days specified.

[3] Thus Celsus represents the Jews—μηδὲν πώποτε ἀξιόλογον πράξαντας,
οὔτ’ ἐν λόγῳ, οὔτ’ ἐν ἀριθμῷ αὐτούς ποτε γεγενημένους. ORIG. contra
CELS. _l._ iv. _p._ 181. _ed. Spenc. Cantab. 1677_. And in _p._ 175,
he represents it as the highest absurdity in such _reptiles_ to
pretend that their insignificant concerns were the objects of divine
prediction, and that the supreme Governor of the world, who had so many
greater things upon his hands, should be only solicitous, as it were,
to keep up a perpetual intercourse with them. See the whole passage,
which the philosopher seems to have taken a pleasure to work up with
much oratorical amplification.—Julian, too, was much pleased with this
foolish objection.

[4] _Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as
the dust of the balance._ Isaiah xl. 15.

[5] Si dii sint, est divinatio.

[6] Si divinatio sit, dii sunt.

[7] These objections were long since urged by Celsus, who speaks
of the Jewish and Christian oracles, as _fanatical, uncertain, and
obscure_, _l._ vii. _p._ 338—ἄγνωστα, καὶ πάροιϛρα, καὶ πάντῃ ἄδηλα,
ὧν τὸ μὲν γνῶμα οὐδεὶς ἂν ἔχων νοῦν εὑρεῖν δύναιτο, ἀσαφῆ γὰρ καὶ τὸ
μηδέν. as _applicable to other subjects besides those to which they
were referred_—τὰς εἰς τὰ περὶ τούτου ἀναφερομένας προφητείας δύνασθαι
καὶ ἄλλοις ἐφαρμόζειν πράγμασι. _l._ i. _p._ 39.—nay, _as much more
applicable to others, than to Jesus_—μυρίοις ἄλλοις ἐφαρμοσθῆναι
δύνασθαι πολὺ πιθανώτερον τὰ προφητικὰ ἢ τῷ Ἰησοῦ. _l._ ii. _p._ 78.

[8] Utrum tandem, per deos atque homines, magis verisimile est,
_vesanum remigem_, aut aliquem nostrûm, qui ibi tum eramus, _me,
Catonem, Varronem, Coponium_ ipsum, concilia deorum immortalium
perspicere potuisse? _Cic. Div._ l. ii. c. 55.

[9] Illud etiam requiro, cur, si deus ista visa nobis providendi causâ
dat, non _vigilantibus_ potius dat quàm _dormientibus_? l. ii. c. 61.

[10] Jam verò quid opus est _circuitione et amfractu_, ut sit utendum
interpretibus somniorum, potiùs quàm _directo_? _Ibid._

[11]

    Οὐκ οἶδ’. ἐφ’ οἷς γὰρ μὴ φρονῶ, σιλᾷν φιλῶ.
          Soph. Oedip. Tyran. ver. 577.

[12] Quod est enim criminis genus, aut rei esse alicujus ignarum, aut
ipsum, quod nescias, sine aliquâ profiteri dissimulatione nescire? aut
uter magis videtur irrisione esse dignissimus vobis, qui sibi scientiam
nullam tenebrosæ rei alicujus assumit, an ille, qui retur se ex se
apertissimè scire id, quod humanam transiliat notionem, et quod sit
cæcis obscuritatibus involutum?
                                     _Arnobius_, _adv. Gen._ l. ii.

[13] 1 Cor. ii. 11.

[14] St. Matthew, vi. 22.

[15] Μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ—_the testimony of, or concerning Jesus_,
not—_the testimony given by Jesus_.

The _former_ appears to be the sense, for the following reasons.

1. The point asserted, is, “That the Angel, who had delivered this
illustrious prophecy, was _the fellow-servant of John_, and not of
John only, but _of those who have the testimony of Jesus_.” The proof
is—_for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus_—i. e. the
end of prophecy is to bear testimony, or, to do honour, to Jesus;
therefore, I, says the Angel, who am endowed with this prophetic
spirit, am but employed, as thou art; who, in thy character of Apostle
or Evangelist, hast received the same general commission, namely, to
bear testimony, or to do honour, to Jesus. See Acts x. 42. We are,
therefore, _fellow-servants_, or joint labourers in the same cause.
All this is clear and well-reasoned. But, now, take the words—_the
testimony of Jesus_—in the sense of—_the testimony given by
Jesus_—and how does the Angel’s having _the spirit of prophecy_, prove
him to be _a fellow-servant of John_? for the reason assigned will then
stand thus—_for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony which Jesus
gives of himself_. The inference is, that the Angel was a true prophet.
Again: how is the Angel proved, in this way, to be _the fellow-servant
of those who have the testimony of Jesus_? Why, thus; the Angel had the
spirit of prophecy, and prophecy was the gift of Christ; therefore he
was the fellow-servant of those, who had the same gift, i. e. who were
prophets. Without doubt. But why so strange a way of proving so plain
a point? It had been enough to say—_I am a prophet, as others are_.
Still, what was this to St. John? who, in this place, is not sustaining
the character of a prophet; for the worship he was inclined to pay the
Angel was on account of the Angel’s being, what himself was not, _a
prophet_.

Turn it which way you will, the reasoning is frivolous, or
inconsequent. I conclude therefore, that not _this_, but the _other_
interpretation gives the true sense of—_the testimony of Jesus_.

2. To speak of _prophecy_ under the idea of _a testimony to, or
concerning Jesus_, is conforming to the true scriptural idea of that
gift. Thus we are told that—_to him_ [i. e. to Jesus] _give all the
prophets witness_—τούτῳ πάντες προφῆται μαρτυροῦσιν, Acts x. 43.
_Prophecy_, therefore, being the thing here spoken of, is rightly
called the testimony, or witness to, or concerning Jesus.

3. Lastly, the construction is fully justified, 1. by observing that
the genitive case [as here Ἰησοῦ] is frequently used in scripture,
not actively, but passively. See a variety of instances in Mede, p.
626, where he explains διδασκαλίαι δαιμονίων: And 2. by referring the
reader to the following passage of St. Paul, where the very expression
of the text is so used—μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Κυρίου
ἡμῶν—clearly, _be not ashamed of bearing testimony to our Lord_, 2
Tim. i. 8.—and to Rev. i. 9. where the Apostle tells us, he was in
the isle of Patmos—διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν
Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ—_on account of his having been faithful in preaching
the word of God, and in bearing testimony to Jesus Christ_—and still
more plainly, if possible, and indubitably, by referring him to Rev.
xii. 17. where, speaking of the Dragon, he says, he went in wrath
to make war on those, _which keep the commandments of God, and have
the testimony of Jesus Christ_—τῶν τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ,
καὶ ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ: for these objects of the
Dragon’s fury are properly, THE WITNESSES, those faithful servants of
truth, who suffered for the courageous and persevering _testimony_,
they gave, in evil times, to Jesus Christ, and to his pure religion.

On the whole, there cannot be the least doubt of the interpretation
here given of this famous text. The _expression_ fairly admits this
interpretation; and (what the true critic will regard most) the _scope_
of the place, or pertinence of the reasoning, addressed to St. John,
admits no other.

[16] John v. 39.

[17] Luke xxiv. 27.

[18] Acts iii. 18.

[19] Acts iii. 24. See also Acts x. 43. 1 Pet. i. 10.

[20] See especially the Epistles to the _Hebrews_, and _Galatians_.

[21] Acts xxvi. 22. See farther, Acts xxviii. 23. Rom. iii. 21. Eph.
ii. 19, &c.

[22] Rev. x. 7.

[23] DR. MIDDLETON’S _Works_, vol. III. p. 137. London, 1752, 4to.

[24] Though by _Moses_, is here meant, not the prophecies of Moses
only, but the _books_ of Moses, containing those former prophecies,
which, as St. Peter says, had been delivered, _since the world began_.

[25] DR. MIDDLETON, p. 139.

[26] D. L. Vol. V. p. 288. Lond. 1765.

[27] Gal. iii. 24.—ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριϛόν—

[28] Coloss. ii. 17. Hence, St. Austin affirms roundly, “That, to such
as consider the genius of the revealed system, the Old Testament must
appear a continued prophecy of the New.”—_Vetus Testamentum_, rectè
_sentientibus_, PROPHETIA _est Novi Testamenti_ [_contr. Faustum_, l.
xv.]: and St. Jerom speaks of it as a generally-received maxim, “That
it is the manner of sacred scripture, to deliver, beforehand, the truth
of futurity, in types”—_hunc esse morem scripturæ sanctæ ut futurorum
veritatem præmittat_, in TYPIS [Hieron. T. III. 1127.]—I know,
that the ancient Fathers, and from them many moderns, have exposed
themselves to much and deserved censure, by pursuing this principle
too minutely and superstitiously, in their mystical and allegorical
comments on the Jewish scriptures. But men of sense will consider,
that a principle is not therefore to be rejected, because it has been
abused. For instance, that the Passover was instituted with a reference
to the sacrifice of Christ, that the paschal Lamb was, in the language
of St. Austin, a _prophecy_, or, in that of St. Jerom, a _type_, of
the lamb of God, will seem highly credible to one who considers the
aptness of the correspondence in two related parts of the same system:
But, that the famous Law in Deuteronomy, concerning the marriage of a
brother’s widow, was _prophetic_, or _typical_ of the duty, incumbent
on the ministers of the Gospel, to espouse the widowed church of
Christ, is certainly much less clear, and will scarcely be admitted
even on the authority of St. Austin.—Hoc ipsum—quod uxorem fratris ad
hoc frater jussus est ducere, ut non sibi, sed illi sobolem suscitaret,
ejusque vocaret nomine, quod inde nasceretur: quid aliud _in figurâ
præmonstrat_, nisi quia unusquisque Evangelii prædicator ita debet
in Ecclesiâ laborare, ut defuncto fratri, hoc est Christo, suscitet
semen, qui pro nobis mortuus est, et quod suscitatum fuerit, ejus nomen
accipiat? _Contr. Faustum_, l. 32.—St. Austin might, perhaps, say
for himself, that he had an example of this practice in the mystical
comments of St. Paul: it may be so: but an _example_, followed without
warrant, in this instance, by the learned Father, and, not improbably,
ill understood by him.

[29] Adv. of Learning, B. II.

[30] DR. MIDDLETON, _Works_, vol. III. p. 177. _London_, 1752, 4to.

[31] DR. MIDDLETON, vol. III. p. 177.

[32] See further on this subject, D. L. vol. V. p. 290.

[33] Quand UN SEUL HOMME auroit fait un livre des prédictions de Jesus
Christ pour le tems et pour la maniere, et que Jesus Christ seroit venu
conformément à ces propheties, ce seroit une force infinie. Mais il y
a bien plus ici. C’est une SUITE D’HOMMES durant quatre mille ans, qui
constamment & sans variation viennent l’un ensuite de l’autre prédire
ce même avénement. C’est UN PEUPLE TOUT ENTIER qui l’annonce, et qui
subsiste pendant quatre mille années, pour rendre EN CORPS témoignage
des assurances qu’ils en ont, & dont ils ne peuvent être detournés par
quelques menaces et quelque persecution qu’on leur fasse: CECI EST TOUT
AUTREMENT CONSIDERABLE.
                                                                Pascal.

[34] See the passage before referred to in Serm. I. p. 6.

[35] Daniel, c. ii.

[36] Est autem Quaternio iste regnorum Danielis (quod imprimis
observari velim) CHRONOLOGIA QUÆDAM PROPHETICA, non tam annorum
quàm regnorum intervallis distincta, ubi regnorum in præcipuâ orbis
terrarum parte, simul ecclesiam et populum Dei complexâ, sibi invicem
succedentium serie, monstratur tempus quo Christi regnum à tot seculis
promissum et primùm inchoandum sit, idemque demum certis temporibus
consummandum.

—Ex his, quæ dicta sunt, ratio elucet, quare, ex omnibus mundi regnis,
quatuor hæc sola selegit Spiritus sanctus, quorum fata tam insigni
ornaret prophetiâ; nempe quia ex his solis inter omnia mundi regna
periodus temporum ejusmodi contexi potuit, qua rectâ serie et ordinatâ
successione perduceret ad tempora et momenta regni Christi. Non verò
quia nulla istis paria imperia, forsan et aliquibus majora, per omnia
secula orbis visurus esset. Nam neque Saracenorum olím, neque hodie
Turcarum, neque Tartarorum regna ditionis amplitudine Persico aut
Græco, puto nec Assyrio, quicquam concedunt; imò, ni fallor, excedunt.
                             MEDE’S Works, B. III. p. 712. Lond. 1672.

[37] To this purpose the late learned and ingenious author of the
_Discourses on Prophecy_—“A figurative and dark description of
a future event will be figurative and dark still, when the event
happens.” And again—“No event can make a figurative or metaphorical
expression to be a plain or literal one.” Bishop Sherlock, _Disc._ II.
p. 32 and 36. London, 1749.

[38] Le dessein de Dieu est plus de perfectionner la volonté, que
l’esprit. Or, la clarté parfaite ne serviroit qu’à l’esprit, & nuiroit
à la volonté. Pascal.

[39] Rom. iv. 17.

[40] Ταῦτα ὁ Θεὸς προεμήνυσε διὰ τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος μέλλειν
γίνεσθαι, ἵν’, ὅταν γένηται, μὴ ἀπιϛηθῇ, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ προειρῆσθαι πιϛευθῇ.
                             J. MARTYR, _Apol._ I. c. 74.

[41] Yet hear in how decisive a tone a certain writer, of no small
account with the infidel party, reprobates this argument:—“Je dis
de plus, qu’aucune prophétie ne sauroit faire autorité pour moi.”
[Rousseau, Œuvres, T. III. p. 156. La Haye, 1762.] “I say,” says Mr.
Rousseau, “that the argument from prophecy can have no weight with
me.” If you ask his reason, it follows. “Because, to give it any
authority, three conditions are required, the concurrence of which is
impossible. First, I must have been, myself, a witness of the prophecy,
when delivered. Secondly, I must have been, myself; a witness of the
event: And lastly, I must have it demonstrated to me that the agreement
between the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous. For
though the prophecy were clearer, and more precise, than a geometrical
axiom, yet as the clearness of a prediction, made at hazard, does
not render the accomplishment of it impossible, this accomplishment,
allowing it to take place, proves nothing, strictly speaking, in favour
of the person who foretold it.”

First, he says, _He must himself have been a witness of the prophecy_.
But why so? Is there no way of being reasonably assured that a prophecy
has been delivered, unless one has been actually present at the
delivery of it? Does any one doubt, whether Socrates told his friend
that he should die within three days’ time, because he did not hear
these words from the mouth of the philosopher? But, there is less
reason still to doubt whether Jesus uttered the prophecies, ascribed to
him in the Gospel.

Next, _He must have been, himself, a witness of the event_. With just
as good reason, as of the prophecy. However, it so happens that we
are, or may be, if we please, witnesses of the events, foretold in
many prophecies. What does he think of the dispersion of the Jews, for
instance? Is he not a witness of this event?

But lastly, _He must have it demonstrated to him that the agreement
between the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous_.
What, will nothing less than _demonstration_ satisfy him? Will not
a high degree of probability serve him to form a conclusion upon,
nay, and to regulate his conduct? And will he stand out against the
strongest degree of evidence, short of mathematical, or a proof _à la
rigueur_, as he terms it, in a subject, where, from the nature of it,
mathematical certainty is not to be had?

Surely one needs be no great philosopher to see that all which is
wanting to give authority to the argument from prophecy, is, That we
have _reason_ to admit the delivery of a prediction—that we have
_reason_ to admit the completion of it—and that we have reason
to think the agreement between the prediction and the event not
fortuitous. And where is the impossibility that these three reasons
should concur?—It is plain that the only one of these three reasons
that appears in any degree problematical is the last concerning the
completion of a prophecy in its event, whether it be fortuitous or
not. Have I not reason then to say, as I do below p. 81, 82, that the
strength of the infidel cause lies in this last consideration?—But
what that strength is, we shall see as we go along.

[42] Socrates foretold that he should _dye within three days_: and the
event followed.—_Est apud Platonem Socrates, cùm esset in custodiâ
publicâ, dicens Critoni suo familiari, sibi post tertium diem esse
moriendum—quod, ut est dictum, sic scribitur contigisse_ [Cic. de
Div. l. i. c. 25.] Jesus foretold that he should suffer death by
_crucifixion_. [John iii. 14. viii. 28. xii. 32.] He, likewise,
foretold that he should _rise from the dead_, within _three days_ after
his crucifixion. [John ii. 19. Matth. xii. 39, 40.]—The _first_ of
these predictions might be a sagacious conjecture. Can it be said of
such, as the _two last_,—

    _Augurium, ratio est, et conjectura futuri_?
                    Ovid. Trist. l. I. viii. 51.

[43] Hoc si est in libris, in _quem hominem_, et in _quod tempus_ est?
Callidè enim, qui illa composuit, perfecit, ut, quodcunque accidisset,
prædictum videretur, _hominum et temporum definitione sublatâ_—said,
in discredit of the Sibylline oracles [_De Div._ l. ii. p. 295. _fol.
Lutet._ 1565]: how far applicable to the scriptural prophecies, will be
seen in its place.

[44] Διὰ τὸ ὅλως εἶναι ἁμάρτημα ἔλαττον, διὰ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ πράγματος
λέγουσιν οἱ μάντεις. And again—οἱ χρησμολόγοι, οὐ προσορίζονται πότε.
Aristot. Rhet. l. iii. c. v.

[45] Permultorum exemplorum et nostra plena est respublica, et omnia
regna, omnesque populi, cunctæque gentes, augurum prædictis multa
incredibiliter vera cecidisse.
                                      _Cic. de Leg._ l. ii. p. 337.

[46]
    Certabant, urbem Romam, Remoramne vocarent.
    Omnibu’ cura viris, uter esset induperator.

    Cedunt de cœlo ter quatuor corpora sancta
    Avium, præpetibus sese, pulchrisque locis dant.
    Conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse priora,
    Auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque.
                      _Cic. de Div._ l. i. c. 48.

[47] Quot sæcula urbi Romæ debeantur, dicere meum non est: sed, quid
apud Varronem legerim, non tacebo. Qui libro Antiquitatum duodevicesimo
ait, fuisse Vettium Romæ in augurio non ignobilem, ingenio magno,
cuivis docto in disceptando parem; eum se audisse dicentem: Si ita
esset, ut traderent historici, de Romuli urbis condendæ auguriis, ac
_duodecim vulturibus_; quoniam CXX annos incolumis præteriisset populus
Romanus, ad _mille et ducentos_ perventurum.
              CENSORINUS _de die natali_, c. xvii. p. 97. Cantab. 1695.

[48] Hence Sidonius, in personating the city of Rome, makes her ask—

    Quid, rogo, _bis seno_ mihi _vulture_ Thuscus aruspex
    _Portendit_?
                                    Sidon. Carm. vii. 55.

And again, addressing himself to the same city,

    Jam propè fata _tui bissenas vulturis alas_
    Complebant (scis namque tuos, scis, _Roma_, labores.)
                                            Ib. ver. 358.

And, before him, Claudian, to the same purpose—

    Tunc reputant annos, _interceptoque volatu
    Vulturis_, incidunt properatis sæcula metis.
                                 B. G. ver. 262.

[49] Medea, ver. 374.

[50] _Annis seris._

[51] Ferdinand.

[52] _Casu_, inquis. Itáne verò quicquam potest esse _casu_ factum,
quod omnes habet in se numeros veritatis? Quatuor tali jacti, _casu_
Venereum efficiunt. Num etiam centum Venereos, si CCCC talos jeceris,
_casu_ futuros putas? _De Div._ l. i. p. 259, Lutet. 1565.—Had the
supposed case been fairly applied to the subject, there had been an
end of the dispute; as may appear from the pitiful answer, made in the
next book to this reasoning—dixisti multa de _casu_: ut, Venereum jaci
posse casu, quatuor talis jactis; quadringentis, centum Venereos non
posse casu consistere. Primùm, NESCIO, CUR NON POSSINT.—Was this, like
a philosopher?

[53] Multa vera, inquit, evadere. Quid, quòd multo plura, falsa? Nónne
ipsa varietas, quæ est propria fortunæ, fortunam esse causam, non
naturam, docet? _De Div._ l. ii. p. 295. This, methinks, looks like
sense.

[54] See the ancient apologists, who are frequent and large on this
subject; and, of the moderns, see especially Huetii _Dem. Evang.
Prop._ IX.—Bishop Kidder’s _Dem. of the Messias_, c. ii. p. 17,
18. London, 1726, fol.—Dr. Clarke’s _Evidences of Nat. and Rev.
Religion_.—_Pensées de M. Pascal_, p. 108.

[55] I take these examples to be more in point, than those given by
Bishop Butler in his _Analogy_, P. II c. vii. p. 386. Lond. 1740: not
but those, too, have their weight.

[56] Grotius.

[57] Serm. II.

[58] Ἀπ’ αἰῶνος. Luke i. 70.

[59] This use and intent of prophecy was seen, and admirably expressed,
by the great _M. Pascal_—“Les propheties sont mêlées de propheties
particulieres, et de celles du Messie, afin que les propheties
du Messie ne fussent pas sans _preuves_, et que les propheties
particulieres ne fussent pas sans _fruit_.” _Pensées_, p. 112.

[60] _The Lord himself shall give you a sign_, Isai. vii. 14.—This
SIGN (and the extraordinary introduction of it, in the words quoted,
indicates no less) had plainly a recondite and even complicated meaning!

1. As addressed to _Ahaz_, it was simply an ASSURANCE, that his
deliverance from his two great enemies was now at hand.

2. As addressed to the _house of David_—_Hear ye now, O house of
David_—it was a TYPE of Christ.

3. It was, farther, a TOKEN, or pledge, that the remote deliverance of
the house of David by Immanuel, should hereafter take place, just as
the approaching deliverance of Ahaz, by the prophet’s Son, would be
seen to do.

4. This sign, when fulfilled in the near event, would, thenceforward,
become a PROOF, or evidence, that it would be fulfilled in the remote
one.

5. Lastly, in the Antitype, the sign was a MIRACLE, properly so called.

So eminently was this Child, a SIGN! A _sign_, in all the _senses_
of the word, as employed by the Jewish prophets; and to all the
_purposes_, for which signs were given.

[61] Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν τὰ γενόμενα ἤδη πάντα ἀποδείκνυμεν, πρὶν ἢ
γενέσθαι, προκεκηρύχθαι διὰ τῶν προφητῶν, ἀνάγκη καὶ περὶ τῶν
ὁμοίως προφητευθέντων, μελλόντων δὲ γίνεσθαι, πίϛιν ἔχειν ὡς πάντως
γενησομένων.
                     JUSTIN MARTYR, _Apol._ i. c. 87.

[62] Isaiah vii. 16. Daniel ix. 24.

[63] Mal. iv. 5. Luke xvi. 16.

[64] Joel ii. 28, 29.

[65] Is not their case exactly delineated by the prophet
Ezekiel—_Mischief shall come upon mischief, and rumour shall be upon
rumour; then shall they_ SEEK A VISION OF THE PROPHET; i. e. they shall
seek what they shall not find, _for the_ LAW _shall perish from the
priest, and_ COUNCIL _from the ancients_; i. e. their ecclesiastical
and civil polity, to which prophecy was annexed, shall be utterly
abolished. See Ezekiel vii. 26. and compare Isaiah iii. 1, 2.

[66] See A. VAN DALE, _de Oraculorum ethnicorum duratione atque
interitu_.

[67] The sacred text says—_myriads_—θεωρεῖς, ἀδελφὲ, πόσαι μυριάδες
εἶσιν Ἰουδαίων τῶν πεπιϛευκότων—Acts xxi. 20.

[68] Acts x.

[69] Acts xiii. 42. 48.

[70] Τίνι γὰρ ἂν λόγῳ ἀνθρώπῳ ϛαυρωθέντι ἐπειθόμεθα, ὅτι πρωτότοκος
τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ ἐϛι, καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ παντὸς ἀνθρωπείου γένους
ποιήσεται, εἰ μὴ μαρτύρια, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον,
κεκηρυγμένα περὶ αὐτοῦ εὕρομεν, καὶ οὕτως γενόμενα ὁρῶμεν;
                        JUSTIN MARTYR, _Apol._ i. c. 88.

[71] Acts xv. 18.

[72] Isaiah xl. 21.

[73] We see this design very plainly, in the prophecies of Jesus
concerning _his own death and resurrection_; concerning _the descent of
the holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost_; concerning _events, that were
to befall his disciples_; and in other instances.

[74] La plus grande des preuves de Jesus Christ, ce sont les
propheties. C’est aussi à quoi Dieu a la plus pourvû; car l’evenement,
qui les a remplies, est un MIRACLE SUBSISTANT depuis la naissance de
l’Eglise jusqu’ à la fin.
                                                         _M. Pascal._

[75] For these particulars, see Dr. Jortin’s _Rem. on Ecclesiastical
History_, vol. I. p. 20-89.

[76] An event, it must be owned, the more likely to happen, as the Jews
had always been disposed to _trust to their high and fenced walls_;
which yet could never defend them from their enemies, as their history
shews, and, as Moses had distinctly foretold, _Deut._ xxviii. 52.

[77] Matth. xxiv. 28. and compare Luke xvii. 37. Ὅπου γὰρ ἐὰν ᾖ τὸ
πτῶμα, ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί.—Meaning by _eagles_, the standards
of the Roman army.—Some writers of name have, indeed, observed,
that this is only a _proverbial_ expression. True: but proverbial
prophecies are often fulfilled in the strict literal sense of the
expression; as Grotius well observes on Matth. xxvi. 23. hîc quoque
accidit, quod in _multis aliis vaticiniis_, ut verba—non tantùm
secundùm proverbialem loquendi modum, sed etiam secundùm _exactissimam
verborum significationem_ implerentur.—If the reader calls to mind
the prediction of our Lord, as it is elsewhere expressed, without a
figure—_when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with_ ARMIES [Luke, xxi.
20]—and compares it with the _event_, he will hardly make a doubt
whether _eagles_, in those figurative predictions, which respect the
same subject, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem, were not intended
by our Lord to denote, the ROMAN armies.

[78] —debellare _superbos_. Virg.

[79] Assuredly this prophecy was not in the number of those, of which
it hath been said—_The prophecy is not occasioned by the event, but
the event by the prophecy—L’evenement n’est pas predit parcequ’il
arrivera; mais il arrive parcequ’il a été predit._ ROUSSEAU, _Nouv.
Hel._ t. iv. p. 314. n. Neuf. 1764.

[80] Matth. xvi. 28.

[81] Matth. xxiv. 34.

[82] Luke xxi. 20.

[83] Luke xxi. 18. Acts ii. 21. Mark xiii. 20.

[84] See the learned Bishop Newton’s _Dissertations on the Prophecies_,
vol. ii, p. 268. n.

[85] Deut. xxviii.

[86] 1 Thess. ii. 16.

[87] Luke xxi. 22. 24.

[88] Rom. xi. 25.

[89] Jer. xlvi. 28.

[90] Isai. i. 21. Ezek. vi. 8.

[91] Lev. xxvi. 44.

[92] Hear the profound and reflecting M. Pascal—L’etat où l’on voit
les Juifs est une grande preuve de la Religion. Car c’est une chose
étonnante de voir ce peuple _subsister_ depuis tant d’années, & de
le voir _toujours miserable_—et, quoique il soit contraire, D’ETRE
MISERABLE, & DE SUBSISTER, il subsiste neanmoins toujours malgré sa
misère. PENSEES, p. 115.

[93] —Multò minus nomen criminandum, in captivitate sacratorum suorum,
qui supernam patriam veraci fide expectantes, _etiam in suis sedibus
peregrinos se esse noverunt_. _Aug. De Civ. Dei_, l. i. 15.

[94] Jer. xlvi. 28.

[95] Ps. ii. 8.

[96] Mal. i. 2.

[97] Is. xlix. 6.

[98] Mark xvi. 15.

[99] The reader may see many of them collected, and the general
argument from them well inforced, by Mr. Bullock, in his VINDICATION,
Part II.

[100] As in the case of _Mahometanism_, for instance.

[101] What the Philosopher Celsus thought of such a project, we learn
from a curious passage in Origen. It being usual with the Christians
of that time, as of every other, _to pray for the conversion of the
whole world to the Christian faith_, the philosopher laughs at the
extravagance of this petition. He observes upon it, ὅτι ὁ τοῦτο
οἰόμενος οἶδεν οὐδέν. The words are not easily translated. But the
_meaning_ of them is, That he regarded an universal agreement in one
mode of religious belief, as a perfect chimæra: and the _turn_ of the
words is so contrived, as to express the utmost contempt of those, who,
in their supreme ignorance of mankind, could entertain so senseless an
idea. _Contr. Celsum_, l. viii. _sub. fin._

[102] Matth. xxiii. 15.

[103] Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a _new
covenant_ with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not
according to the covenant that I made with their fathers—but this
shall be my covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after
those days, saith the Lord, _I will put my Law in their inward parts,
and write it in their hearts_, &c. Jer. xxxi. 31-33. See also Jer. iii.
16.

[104] For behold, _I create new heavens and a new earth_: and the
_former shall not be remembered nor come into mind_. Is. lxv. 17.

[105] The _Gentiles_ shall see thy righteousness, and all Kings, thy
glory: And thou shalt be _called by a new name_, which the mouth of the
Lord shall name. Is. lxii. 2.

[106] Is. lx. 22.

[107] Matth. xiii. 31, 32.

[108] Si enim et hostes _exertos_, non tantùm vindices occultos,
agere vellemus, _deesset nobis vis numerorum et copiarum_? _Tertull.
Apologet._ c. 37.

[109] Could it be _foreseen_, that nothing of this sort would happen?
When the _Reformation_ was set on foot in Germany, Luther and his
adherents resolved to carry it on in the spirit of the Gospel, that
is, by _pacific measures_. But how soon did passion and policy strike
in, to drive them from this purpose! The Catholics were intolerant:
the Reformed grew powerful: and then, what was too naturally to be
expected, followed.

If it be said, that the Gospel hath not been always propagated,
_without force_; I acknowledge, it has not: but then I observe, 1. that
it was incontestably so propagated, till the conversion of the Roman
empire; in which event, alone, the prophecies appear to have had a
reasonable completion. 2. that the _force employed_, has generally been
the force of one Christian sect, directed against some other (in which
scandalous contentions the prophecies have no concern), not in the
propagation of Christianity itself in unbelieving countries. 3. that
the _way of force_, when professedly used against unbelievers, though,
in _some_ cases, it has contributed to the enlargement of Christ’s
kingdom, has yet, in _others_ (where, too, the utmost force and zeal
were combined) very signally failed of success; of which the _crusades
against the Mahometans_ afford a striking instance: and 4. lastly,
that we expect the _final universal_ prevalence of the Christian faith
from the same spiritual arms only, which were first employed with such
success in the propagation of it.

[110] An eminent writer, with the view, indeed, of disgracing the
Reformation, hath set this matter in a very just light: “Que nos
freres, says he, ouvrent donc les yeux; qu’ils les jettent sur
l’ancienne Eglise, qui durant tant de siécles d’une persecution si
cruelle ne s’est jamais échapée, ni un seul moment, ni dans un seul
homme, & qu’on a vûë aussi soûmise sous Diocletien, et même sous Julien
l’apostat, lorsqu’elle remplissoit deja toute la terre, que sous Neron
& sous Domitien, lorsqu’elle ne faisoit que de naitre: C’EST LA QU’ON
VOIT VERITABLEMENT LE DOIGT DE DIEU.”
                                 _Hist. des Variations_, l. x. c. 53.

_The finger of God_, as the learned writer says, was indeed conspicuous
in this conduct of the primitive Christians, because it fulfilled the
prophecies (so unlikely to be fulfilled) concerning the _manner_ in
which Christianity was to obtain an establishment in the world. If
the conduct of the _reformed_ had not this merit, it was because the
prophecies did not extend to the reformation of Christian religion, but
to the introduction and first settlement of it. The agents, in this
last work of Providence, were therefore left to the natural influence
of their passions, and they acted too frequently as those passions
impelled them.

For the rest, how far the _general_ precepts of the Gospel require
a passive submission and non-resistance to outrageous intolerance,
whether absolutely, and in all cases, is a point of nice discussion;
in which I take no part, at present, because I am not now making the
apology of the _reformed_, but shewing the completion of the prophecies
concerning the _propagators_ of Christianity: and the wonder to see
them so punctually completed, is not lessened, but increased, by
supposing, that the precepts of the Gospel leave mankind to the free
use of their natural rights, in the case of extreme violence and
injustice.

[111] _The vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall
speak, and not lye: though it tarry, wait for it, because it shall
surely come, it will not tarry._ Habakkuk, ii. 3.

[112] By the word _Tyranny_, here and elsewhere in these discourses, as
applied to the Pope, I would be understood to mean, that _super-eminent
dominion_, which he exercised, or claimed a _right_ of exercising, over
the princes and states of his communion, in all affairs both temporal
and spiritual.—I use the word (somewhat improperly, perhaps) for
the sake of brevity, as I know of no other single term, that so well
expresses my meaning.

[113] What is here said of the scriptural division of _time_, with
regard to the affairs of the _Church_, is enough for my purpose.
There is another division of time, in the prophetic scriptures, with
regard to the _kingdoms of the world_; concerning which the reader may
consult BISHOP KIDDER’S _Dem. of the Messiah_, Part iii. ch. ix.; and
especially Mr. MEDE’S _Apostasy of the latter times_, ch. xi.

[114] Matth. xxiv. 24. Mark xiii. 21.

[115] 1 Ep. John, iv. 3.

[116] Ἀντίχριϛος—ἀντι, in the sense either of _pro_, or _contra_.

[117] Grotius says, “Sicut _Anticæsarem_ dicimus qui contra Cæsarem
se Cæsarem vult dici atque Cæsar haberi, sic _Antichristus_ est qui
se vero Christo opponit _eo modo_ ut ipse Christus haberi velit.”
OP. t. iv. p. 490.—The learned commentator did not reflect, that
words are not always used according to the strict import of their
etymologies. _False Christs_, we will say, are, in the strict sense
of the word, _Antichrists_. But the question is, in _what_ sense
this word is used of the person called, by way of eminence, THE
ANTICHRIST. This must be collected from the attributes given to him
in the prophecies themselves, not from the rigorous etymology of the
term. The case was plainly this. St. John is speaking of the _false
Christs_, who had appeared in his time; and, to disgrace them the
more effectually in the minds of those to whom he writes, he brands
them with the name of _Antichrists_: not so much respecting the exact
sense of the word, as the ideas of aversion, which, he knew, it would
excite. For the tradition of the church concerning _Antichrist_,
had made this appellation, of all others, the most opprobrious, and
hateful.—Besides, it is not so clear, as Grotius supposes, that the
strict sense of the word, _Antichristus_, must be—_is, qui se vero
Christo opponit eo modo ut ipse Christus haberi velit_. Cæsar, who
generally expressed himself with exact propriety, thought fit, on a
certain occasion, to assume the name and character of, ANTICATO. Was
it Cæsar’s purpose to say, or was it his ambition to pretend, “_that
he opposed himself to the true Cato_, EO MODO _ut ipse_ CATO _haberi
vellet_?”

[118] Eusebius mentions, JUDAS, H. E. l. vi. c. 2; and DIONYSIUS, E. H.
l. vii. c. 10.—_Others_, seemed to expect that Antichrist would appear
as the Messiah of the Jews; but in the person of a Roman Emperor; as
will be explained presently. See the next note.

[119] See many citations to this purpose in Dr. Lardner’s _Cred._ p.
ii. v. p. 210, 11, 12.

[120] Jerom, in Dan. vii. Mede, p. 657.

[121] Quisquis se universalem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione
suâ Antichristum præcurrit. GREG. M. Op. Ep. xxx. l. vi. _Par._ 1533.

[122] In hâc ejus superbiâ, quid aliud nisi propinqua jam Antichristi
esse tempora designatur? Ep. xxxiv. l. iv.

[123] With all his merits, Gregory the Great, it is to be feared, had
some Antichristian marks upon him; and his adversary of the East might
have gone some way towards _fixing_ them upon his _Grandeur_, if he had
but observed, that Antichrist, whoever he was, and whensoever to appear
in the world, is clearly marked out in the prophecies, as having his
seat in _old Rome_.

[124] A. 991.

[125] Quid hunc, reverendi patres, in sublimi solio residentem, veste
purpureâ et aureâ radiantem; quid hunc, inquam, esse censetis? Nimirum,
si charitate destituitur, solâque scientiâ inflatur et extollitur,
ANTICHRISTUS est, _in templo Dei sedens, et se ostendens tanquam sit
Deus_. USSER. _de Christian. Eccl. successione & statu_, c. ii. p. 36.
Lond. 1613.—ILLYRICI _Cat. Test. Ver._ p. 1558. _Officin. Jacob. Stoër
et Jacob. Chouël._—This Arnulph, Bishop of Orleans, was esteemed, in
his day, the wisest and most eloquent of all the Gallican prelates.
Arnulphus—de quo sic initio ejus synodi scriptum est—_Inter omnes
Galliarum episcopos sapientiâ et eloquentiâ clarissimus habebatur_. Ib.

[126] “Ecclesiam vanitatis, & SEDEM SATANÆ vocabat.” USSER. _de
Christian. Eccl. succes. & statu_, c. 7. s. xxiv. p. 196.—In
Apocalypsin scripsisse testatur Bostonius Buriensis. CAVE, H. L. vol.
ii. p. 131. _Oxon._ 1743.

[127] Plerique omnes boni, aperti, justi, ingenui, simplices, tum
imperium Antichristi cœpisse, quod ea quæ Christus servator noster
tot annos ante nobis cantavit, evenisse eo tempore cernebant, memoriæ
literarum prodidêre. ANNAL. BOIORUM, l. v. p. 591. Ingolstad. 1554.

[128] CAVE, H. L. vol. ii. p. 258. Conc. Flor. 1104. USSER. _De Christ.
Eccl. succ. & stat._ c. v. s. v. p. 109.

[129] MINISTRI CHRISTI SUNT, ET SERVIUNT ANTICHRISTO [_Serm. sup.
Cantic._ xxxiii.]—It is true, by Antichrist, he seems not to mean the
Pope, but, in general, an evil principle, which then domineered in the
church. Yet he refers us to the famous passage in the first Epistle
to the Thessalonians, ch. ii. And he tells us in his 56th epistle,
that he had heard one Norbert, a man of exemplary piety, say, That
Antichrist would be revealed in that age. Hence it seems probable,
that some one person or power was in his eye. After all, he says, that
Norbert’s reasons did not satisfy him. Yet, in another epistle, he
asserts expressly—Bestia illa de Apocalypsi, cui datum est os loquens
blasphemias, et bellum gerere cum sanctis, PETRI CATHEDRAM OCCUPAT,
tanquam leo paratus ad prædam. Ep. cxxv: which was, in other words,
to call the Pope, Antichrist. It is evident that St. Bernard applied
the prophecies in the Revelation to the successor of St. Peter.—I
mention these things so particularly, to shew, what his sentiments on
this head really were; which have been misrepresented by hasty writers,
who transcribe from each other, without examining, themselves, the
authorities, they quote.

[130] CAVE, H. L. v. ii. 278. ROG. DE HOVEDEN, ANNAL. _Pars Post._
p. 681. Ed. Franc. 1601.—In this age [XIIth], was composed a very
remarkable tract on the subject of Antichrist, which may be seen in
Mede’s Works, p. 721.—Mr. Mede supposes, and seems indeed to have
proved, that the _true_ doctrine of Antichrist was, and was intended to
be, a mystery, or secret, till the 12th century. Whence it follows that
the testimonies, hitherto alledged, are only passionate or declamatory
exaggerations, or to be esteemed, as he says, _pro parabolicè et_ κάτ’
αὔξησιν _dictis, declamatorum more_. _Works_, p. 722.

I admit the truth of the observation: but hold, that the _use_ of
the deduction, here made, is not in the least affected by it. For
my purpose in giving this catalogue of witnesses to the doctrine of
Antichrist, was not to _justify_ that doctrine, in the _true_, that is,
Protestant sense of it (for then, not only the preceding testimonies,
but even some of the following, would have been omitted) but merely
to shew that the general, at least, and confused idea of some such
doctrine did, in fact, _subsist_ in the ancient Christian church. That
what idea they had of this doctrine was founded on the _prophecies_, is
clear from the terms in which they express themselves. And, though the
doctrine itself was very imperfectly conceived, and inconsequentially
applied by them, still their language shews that they had some notion
of _a corrupt spiritual power, which was_, in their sense of the
prophets, _to domineer in the church of Rome_: whence I draw this
conclusion (for the sake of which, this whole deduction is made), That
the present application of the prophecies concerning Antichrist to
papal Rome, is not wholly new and unauthorized; as the prejudice, I am
here combating, supposeth it to be.

[131] VITRINGA in Apoc. p. 747. Amst. 1719. USSER. De Eccl. succ. &
stat. c. 6 and 8. THUANUS, l. vi. s. 16. vol. i. p. 221. Ed. Buckley.

[132] See, especially, the famous speech of Everhard, bishop of
Saltzbourg, at the assembly of Ratisbonne, in the time of Gregory the
IXth; inserted at large in Aventinus, _Ann. Boior._ l. vii. p. 684. The
following extracts from it will be thought curious. Hildebrandus ante
annos centum atque septuaginta primus specie religionis _Antichristi_
imperii fundamenta jecit. p. 684.

Flamines illi _Babyloniæ_ [meaning the Bishops of Rome] soli regnare
cupiunt, ferre parem non possunt, non desistent donec omnia pedibus
suis conculcaverint, atque _in templo Dei sedeant, extollanturque supra
omne id, quod colitur_. Ib.

Nova consilia sub pectore volutat, ut proprium sibi constituat
imperium, _leges commutat_, suas sancit; contaminat, diripit, spoliat,
fraudat, occidit, perditus homo ille (_quem Antichristum vocare
solent_) in cujus fronte _contumeliæ nomen_ scriptum est, “Deus sum,
errare non possum,” _in templo Dei sedet_, longè latéque dominatur.
_Ib._

—_Reges decem pariter existunt_—_Decem Cornua_—_Cornuque
parvulum_—Quid hâc prophetiâ apertius? p. 685.

[133] MATTH. PARIS, ad ann. 1253. p. 874. ed. Watts, 1640.

[134] Purgat. 32.

[135] Epistolarum sine titulo Liber. Ep. xvi. p. 130. Basil.
1581.—Many strokes in this epistle are, to the last degree, severe
and caustic. Addressing himself to Rome, “Illa equidem ipsa es, says
he, quam in spiritu sacer vidit Evangelista.—Populi et gentes et
linguæ, aquæ sunt super quas meretrix sedes; recognosce habitum. Mulier
circumdata purpurâ, et coccino, et inaurata auro, et lapide pretioso,
et margaritis, habens poculum aureum in manu suâ, plenum abominatione
et immunditiâ fornicationis ejus.—Audi reliqua. Et vidi (inquit)
mulierem ebriam de sanguine sanctorum, et de sanguine martyrum Jesu.
Quid siles?”—And so goes on to apply the prophecies of the Revelation
to the church of Rome, in terms that furnish out a good comment on the
famous verse in one of his poems—

    _Gia Roma, hor Babylonia false è ria_—

Numberless passages in the writings of Petrarch speak of Rome, under
the name of _Babylon_. But an equal stress is not to be laid on all of
these. It should be remembered, that the Popes, in Petrarch’s time,
resided at Avignon; greatly to the disparagement of themselves, as
he thought, and especially of Rome; of which this singular man was
little less than idolatrous. The situation of the place, surrounded by
waters, and his splenetic concern for the _exiled_ Church (for under
this idea, he painted to himself the Pope’s migration to the banks of
Avignon) brought to his mind the condition of the Jewish church in
the Babylonian captivity. And this parallel was all, perhaps, that he
meant to insinuate in most of those passages. But, when he applies the
prophecies to Rome, as to the _Apocalyptic_ Babylon (as he clearly does
in the epistle under consideration) his meaning is not equivocal: and
we do him but justice to give him an honourable place among the TESTES
VERITATIS.

[136] See the catalogue of his works in Cave’s Hist. Lit. vol. ii. App.
p. 63; in which is the following book of Dialogues. Dialogorum libri
quatuor; quorum—quartus Romanæ Ecclesiæ sacramenta, ejus pestiferam
vocationem, ANTICHRISTI REGNUM, fratrum fraudulentam originem atque
eorum hypocrisim, variaque nostro ævo scitu dignissima, perstringit.

[137] Mandantes omnibus, &c.—_tempus quoque præfixum futurorum
malorum, vel_ ANTICHRISTI ADVENTUM—_prædicare, vel asserere, nequaquam
præsumant_. BIN. CONC. _Lateran._ v. _sub Leone_ X. _Sess._ xi. _p._ 632.

[138] M. d’Alembert, indeed, goes further. He acquaints us, that this
_charge_ is now out of date, and that nobody, either within or without
the Romish communion, makes it any longer. For, speaking of a public
inscription at Geneva, in which _the Pope is called Antichrist_, he
animadverts on this disgrace of that Protestant people, and very kindly
suggests to them what their improved sentiments and language should be
on that subject. _As for the Catholics_ (says he, very gravely,) _the
Pope is regarded by them, as the Head of the true Church: By sage and
moderate Protestants, he is seen in the light of a sovereign prince,
whom they respect, though they do not obey him: But, in an age like
this_, HE IS NO LONGER ANTICHRIST IN THE OPINION OF ANYBODY. “Pour
les Catholiques, le Pape est le chef de la veritable Eglise; pour les
Protestants sages & modérés, c’est un Souverein qu’ils respectent comme
Prince sans lui obéir: _mais dans un siécle tel que nôtre, il n’est
plus l’Antichrist pour personne_.” Encyclopedie, Art. GENEVE.—If the
present age be, here, truly characterized, it was high time, or rather
it was too late, to found this Protestant Lecture.

[139] Rompons leurs liens, dit-il, et rejettons leur joug de dessus nos
têtes. _Bossuet, H. V._ l. i. c. 26.

[140] _Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her
sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues._ Rev. xviii. 4.

[141] Il [Luther] condamnoit les Bohemiens qui s’etoient separez de
nôtre communion, et protestoit qu’il ne lui arriveroit jamais de tomber
dans _un semblable Schisme_. _Bossuet, Hist. des Variat._ l. i. p.
21. _Par._ 1740. And again, p. 28; Apres, dit-il [Luther,] que j’eus
surmonté tous les argumens qu’on proposoit, il en restoit un dernier
qu’à peine je pus surmonter par le secours de Jesus Christ avec une
extrême difficulté & beaucoup d’angoisse; _c’est qu’il falloit écouter
l’Eglise_.—One sees for what purpose M. Bossuet quotes these passages,
and others of the same kind, from the writings of Luther. However, they
shew very clearly how deep an impression the idea of Schism had made on
the mind even of this intrepid Reformer.

[142] _Contra Bullam Antichristi_—a tract of Luther, so called,
against the Bull of Leo X.

[143] Luther reconnoit après la rupture ouverte, que dans les
commencemens il étoit _comme au desespoir_—
                                      _Bossuet, H. V._ c. 26.

[144] Hor. 1 Ep. vi. 15.

[145] Grotius was more than a great, he was a fashionable man. No
wonder therefore that, under the influence of two such prejudices, his
opinions should find followers; which yet they would scarce have found
with us, if the political state of that time had not been a _third_
prejudice in their favour. See the Bishop of Gloucester’s Sermon, _On
the rise of Antichrist_.

[146] “The folly of interpreters has been, to foretell times and things
by this prophecy, as if God designed to make them prophets.” _Sir I.
Newton_, p. 251.

[147] “God gave this, and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not
to gratify men’s curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things;
but that, after they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted by
the event; and his own providence, not the interpreter’s, be then
manifested thereby to the world.” _Sir I. Newton_, p. 251.

[148] “’Tis a part of this prophecy, that it should not be understood
before the last age of the world; and therefore it makes for the credit
of the prophecy, that it is not yet understood.” _Sir I. Newton_, p.
251.

[149] St. Jerom, who lived in this time, speaks in the very terms, here
supposed, _Romanus orbis_ RUIT. Ep. iii.

[150] Isai. lxv. 17.—2 Pet. iii. 4. 13.

[151] Rev. x. 7.

[152] Daniel xii. 10.

[153] Mede, More, Daubuz, Vitringa, and, above all, the learned Founder
of this Lecture.

[154] Hence, the allusion of our great poet,

        —or from behind the moon
    In dim eclipse disastrous twilight sheds
    On half the nations, and _with fear of change
    Perplexes monarchs_—P. L. i. 596.

[155] See these two works, published together, under the title of
_Artemidori Daldiani et Achmetis Sereimi F. Oneirocritica_, by Nicolaus
Rigaltius. _Lutet._ 1603.

[156] Non enim credo, _nullo percepto_ aut cæteros artifices versari in
suo munere, aut eos, qui divinatione utantur, futura prædicere. _Cic.
de Fato_, c. 6.

[157] Ezekiel xiii. 9.

[158] See Dr. Lancaster’s _Symbolical_ and _Alphabetical Dictionary_,
prefixed to his abridgment of the Commentary on the Revelations, by Mr.
Daubuz.

[159] See this objection urged by Mr. Collins in his _Grounds and
Reasons_, &c. p. 220. Lond. 1737.

[160] Jeremiah xxxiv. 3.

[161] Ezek. xii. 13.

[162] See Grotius on Matth. xxvi. 23.

[163] As to the _authority_ of this extraordinary book (although the
discussion of this point be foreign to my present purpose) it may
be proper to acquaint such persons, as have not made the inquiry
for themselves, and are perhaps incapable of making it, with the
sentiments, which our ablest writers have entertained of it.

Mr. Mede, a capable inquirer, if there ever was any, says roundly—“The
Apocalypse hath more human (not to speak of _divine_) authority, than
any other book of the New Testament besides, even from the time it was
first delivered.” _Works_, p. 602.

—And to the same purpose, Sir Isaac Newton—“I do not find any other
book of the New Testament so strongly attested, or commented upon so
early, as this of the Apocalypse.” _Observations on Daniel_, &c. page
249.

Thus, these two incomparable men. What some minute critics have said,
or insinuated to the contrary, is not worth mentioning; farther, than
just to observe, that, if the authority of this momentous book be
indeed questionable, the church of Rome could hardly have failed long
since to make the discovery, or to triumph in it.

    _Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridæ._

[164] Mal. i. 11.

[165] Lament. i. 15.

[166] Isaiah xl. 20.

[167] Ezek. xx. 47.

[168] Isaiah ii. 2.

[169] Chap. xvii.

[170] The learned Bishop Andrews says expressly—“You shall scarce
find a phrase in the Revelations of St. John, that is not taken out of
Daniel, or some other prophet.” _Vix reperias apud Johannem phrasin
aliquam, nisi vel ex Daniele, vel ex alio aliquo prophetâ desumptam._
Resp. ad Bellarm. Apol. p. 234.

[171] An eminent writer gives an exact idea of it, in these words—“The
style [of the Revelations] is very prophetical, as to the things
spoken: And very hebraizing, as to the speaking of them. Exceeding
much of the old prophets language and matter adduced to intimate new
stories: And exceeding much of the Jews language and allusion to their
customs and opinions, thereby to speak the things more familiarly to be
understood.” Dr. LIGHTFOOT, _Harm. of the N. T._ p. 154, London, 1655.

[172] I have heard it affirmed, on good grounds, that the late Dr.
Samuel Clarke, being asked in conversation by a friend, whether, as
he had taken much pains to interpret the other books of Scripture, he
had never attempted any thing on the Revelations, replied, _He had
not; but that, notwithstanding, he thought he understood every word of
it_: Not meaning, we may be sure, that he knew how to apply every part
of that prophecy, but that he understood the _phraseology_, in which
it was written; which a man, so conversant as he was in the style of
scripture, might very well do.—Calvin, indeed, has been commended for
making the opposite declaration: And, it may be, with good reason:
For (not to derogate in any respect from the character of this great
man) the language of the Scriptures, and especially of the prophetical
scriptures, was in no degree so well understood in his time, as it was
in that of Dr. S. Clarke.

[173] “As for me, I am conscious of my weakness and unworthiness;
being, when these kind of thoughts first possessed me, looking another
way with a prejudice incompatible to this.” _General Pref. to Mede’s
Works_, p. 20, from a MS Letter.

[174] He printed only a few copies of his _Clavis Apocalyptica_ in
1627, at his own expence, and for the use of his friends. _Pref. to his
Commentary._

[175] His Commentary, on the principles of his _Clavis_, did not appear
till 1632.

[176] “I am by nature _cunctabundus_ in all things, but in this [his
Exposition] let no man blame me, if I take more pause than ordinary.”
MS Letter in _Gen. Pref._ p. 22. And again, in a Letter of reply
_ad animadversiones Ludovici de Dieu_, “Eo ingenio sum (delicatulo,
an moroso) ut nisi ubi interpretatio commodè et absque salebris
eat, nunquam mihi satisfacere soleam.” WORKS, p. 569. Yet of this
_sage_ man, could the Bishop of Meaux allow himself to speak thus
negligently—_Il s’est rendu de nos jours célébre en Angleterre_ PAR
SES DOCTES REVERIES _sur l’Apocalypse_. _Hist. des Var._ l. xiii. p.
257. But M. de Meaux knew what he did, when he _affected_ this contempt
of Joseph Mede. He was then at liberty to turn himself from the ablest
advocate of the Protestant cause, to the _weakest_; I mean, M. Jurieu,
whose indiscretions afforded, indeed, ample scope for the raillery of
this lively prelate. Mr. Mede was not a man to be confuted in this
way, and still less by a fanciful and ill-supported _Exposition of the
Apocalypse_.

[177] As appears from his backwardness to publish his discoveries, and
from his unconcern about the reception of them. But see his Letter to
Mr. Hartlib, Ep. 96, p. 881; and compare with his answer to Dr. Twisse,
Ep. 51, p. 811. See also Ep. 98, to Mr. Hartlib, Aug. 6, 1638, not long
before his death, in which are these words:

“I have not been very obtrusive unto men, to acquaint them with my
notions and conceits—for some of them that are but lately known have
lain by me above these twenty years.” P. 883.

[178] _The point of the Pope’s being Antichrist, as a dead fly, marred
the savour of_ THAT OINTMENT—meaning the merit he had of being
known to entertain some opinions; then much cherished by the ruling
clergy. Ep. 56, p. 818. He says afterwards of himself, in the same
Letter, _I thank God, I never made any thing hitherto the caster of my
resolution, but reason and evidence, on what side soever the advantage
or disadvantage fell_.

[179] His friends speak much of his chearful disposition.—But I draw
this conclusion from the tenour of his _life_ and _writings_; and,
above all, from that famous declaration which he made in confidence to
a friend, that, _if he might but obtain a Donative sine curâ, of so
much value as, together with his fellowship_ [of Christ’s College in
Cambridge,] _should enable him to keep a horse, for his recreation, he
would set up his staff for this world_. _App. to his Life_, p. 40.—The
simplicity of this declaration, makes one confident of its truth. And
a man of so moderate desires, was in no danger of having his temper
_soured_ by disappointments.

[180] Siquidem, quæ isti tuo Vaticinio jam, ut dixi, cognito,
cætera contemporaverint Vaticinia, iisdem procul dubio temporibus
sunt applicanda; quæ autem præcedunt, non nisi de præcedaneis; quæ
succedunt, pariter de succedaneis eventibus sunt interpretanda.
                   _Clavis Apocalyptica_, in Mede's _Works_, p. 432.

[181] From ch. iv. to the end of ch. ix: And from ch. x. to the end.

[182] The sounding of the seventh trumpet.

[183] Ch. x. 7.

[184] Ch. xi. 15.

[185] The reader may form a distinct idea of the method, in which the
_whole_ book of the Apocalypse is disposed, by observing that it is
resolvable into THREE great parts.

The FIRST part, is that of the EPISTLES to the seven churches,
contained in the three first chapters, and is not at all considered by
Mr. Mede.

The SECOND part (with which Mr. Mede begins his commentary) is that of
the SEALED BOOK, from ch. iv. to ch. x; and contains _the fates of the
Empire_, or its civil revolutions, yet, with a reference, still, to the
state and fortune of the Christian Church.

The THIRD part, is that of the OPEN BOOK, with what follows to the
end; and exhibits in a more minute and extended view, _the fates of
the Christian Church_, especially during its Apostacy, and after its
recovery from it.

This THIRD division may, further, be considered as consisting of TWO
parts. The FIRST contains, in ch. xi, a summary view of what should
befal the Christian Church, contemporary with the events deduced in
the _second_ part concerning the Empire; and is given in this place,
in order to connect the _second_ and _third_ parts, and to shew their
correspondence and contemporaneity. See Mr. Mede’s Clavis, p. 424; and
Comment. Apocalypt. p. 476.

The SECOND part of the last division, from ch. xii. to the end, gives a
detailed account of what should befal the Christian Church in distinct,
and, several of them, synchronical visions.

It has been thought by some an objection to Mr. Mede’s scheme, “That
the prophecy of the _open book_, (which contains, according to him, all
the remaining visions to the end of the Revelations) is not only, for
the _subject_, more considerable, but, for the _size_ of the volume,
larger, than the Prophecy of the _sealed book_; whereas, the name given
to it, βιβλαρίδιον, or _little book_, seems very clearly to express the
contrary.”

If this objection be thought material (for I do not find that Mr. Mede
condescends to take any notice of it) it _might_, perhaps, be obviated
by supposing, That the _little book_ contains the xith chapter, only,
being a compendium of the _third_ division, and inserted in this place
to shew the contemporaneity of the _two last_ and principal parts;
and that all which follows to the end, is to be regarded as a sort of
_comment_ on the little book, or larger explication of its contents:
As if the design had been to consult our weakness, in presenting us,
_first_, with an abridged view of a great scheme, and _then_, in
drawing it out at large, for our more distinct information.

But the _truer_ answer to the difficulty I take to be, That the _sealed
book_ is represented under the idea of a _book_, properly so called,
which, upon being opened, presents to the eye the several objects
and schemes of the prophecy, distinctly delineated on the _roll_, or
volume, when it comes to be unfolded, and which, therefore, must needs
be considered as a _large_ one. The _open book_, on the other hand,
is to be regarded, not as a real, but _metaphorical_ book; and is not
produced to be read or contemplated, after a gradual evolution of it,
but to be _eaten_, at once, by the prophet; like that book, to which
it alludes, and from which the imagery is taken, in the visions of
Ezekiel [ii. 8. and iii. 1, 2, 3.]—to _eat a book_, being, in the
hieroglyphics, to _meditate upon_, and to _digest_, its contents.
So that this book, to distinguish it from the other, is named a
_little book_: not, that the revelations, conveyed by it, are less
considerable, or less numerous, than the other, but that the _use_,
to which it is put, required only that it should be spoken of, as a
_book_ simply; the diminutive form being here suggested in the term
βιβλαρίδιον, that the metaphor of _eating_ it might seem the easier;
and (because the former _sealed_ book was of an immense size) might,
under this idea, present itself the more naturally, and give less
offence, to the imagination.

[186] I am not ignorant that many interpreters have thought otherwise.
But possibly they have not enough attended to the advice, which
Mr. Mede used to give to such of his friends as did not enter into
his ideas—EXPENDE. My meaning is, that, if they had possessed the
patience, or the sagacity, to understand this great Inventor, before
they objected to him, they would perhaps have seen cause to acquiesce
in the _Method_, pointed out by him, instead of attempting in various
ways, and to little purpose, to improve upon it.

[187] Dan. vii. 7, 8.—I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth
beast—had _ten horns_. I considered the horns, and behold, there came
up among them _another little horn_—Compare with ver. 24.—The ten
horns out of this kingdom are _ten kings_ (or kingdoms) that shall
arise: and _another shall arise after them_.

[188] Mede, p. 712.

[189] Sir Isaac Newton, p. 31.

[190] Dan. vii. 11, 12.—Concerning the rest of the beasts, they had
their _dominion taken away_: yet their _lives were prolonged_ for a
season and a time.

[191] Rev. xvii. 3, 4. 9. 12. 18.

[192] Martial. l. iv. ep. 64.

[193] Propert. l. III. ix. 57.

[194] Georg. l. ii. ver. 532.

[195] Compare Æn. vi. ver. 776. &c.

[196] Rev. xvii. 1.

[197] Ibid. ver. 15.

[198] _Septem_ BESTIÆ _capita_, duplex typus: primò, septem montes seu
colles sunt, super quos urbs Bestiæ metropolis sita est; deinde, septem
quoque, idque in iisdem (quod unitas typi denotat) Collibus, Regum seu
Dynastarum successivorum ordines. Works, p. 524.

[199] The whole passage in the original stands thus—αἱ ἑπτὰ κεφαλαὶ,
ὄρη εἰσὶν ἑπτὰ, ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ κάθηται ἐπ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ βασιλεῖς ἑπτά
εἰσιν—of which the following is the literal translation—The SEVEN
HEADS are _seven hills_, where the woman sitteth upon them, AND are
_seven kings_—Every one sees that the connective particle, AND, refers
to _heads_, and not to _hills_.

[200] Dan. vii. 24.—The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings
that shall arise: and another shall arise after them, and He shall be
_diverse_ from the first—

[201] 2 Thess. ii. 4.

[202] See Grotius, on the place: who applies this prophecy to Caius
Cæsar, and thinks it was fulfilled when that Emperor commanded his
statue to be placed in the temple of Jerusalem. A strange conjecture!
which many writers, and very lately an excellent prelate, has well
confuted. Bishop Newton’s _Diss. on the Prophecies_, Vol. ii. p. 375.

[203] _Hierosolyma_ in scriptis prophetarum occurrit ut emblema
alterius cujusdam _Hierosolymæ_, mysticè sic dicendæ; quæ _Hierosolyma_
non potest esse urbs quædam in montibus Zione & Acra constructa, qualis
fuit antiqua illa; sed oportet esse _rem spiritualem_, in quâ attributa
antiquæ Hierosolymæ _mysticè_ demonstrentur.
                         VITRINGA, _Apocalyps: Exp. & Illustr._ p. 762.

[204] Rev. xiii. 11.

[205] John i. 29.

[206] Dan. vii. 8. 20. Rev. xvii. 1. 16, 17.

[207] Dan. vii. 21. Rev. xvii. 14. xiii. 7. 16.

[208] Rev. xvii. 5.

[209] Le saint apôtre a bien pris garde de ne pas nommer la prostituée,
dont il parle, une adultere, μοιχάδα, μοιχαλίδα, mais une femme
publique—sans jamais avoir employé le mot d’_adultere_; tant il étoit
attentif à éviter l’idée d’une épouse infidelle.—Loin de marquer la
Prostituée, comme une _Eglize corrompuë_, nous avons montré clairement
qu’il a pris des idées toutes contraires à celles-là, puis qu’au lieu
de produire une _Jerusalem infidelle_, ou du moins une _Samarie_,
autrefois partie du peuple saint, commee il auroit fait s’il avoit
voulu nous représenter une eglise corrompuë, il nous propose une
_Babylone_, qui jamais n’a eté nommée dans l’alliance de Dieu. Nous
avons aussi remarqué qu’il n’avoit jamais donné à la Prostituée le
titre d’épouse infidelle ou repudiée; mais que par tout il s’étoit
servi du terme de _fornication_, et de tous ceux qui revenoient au
même sens. Je sçais que ces mots se confondent quelquefois avec
celui d’_adultere_, mais _le fort du raisonnement consiste en ce que
de propos deliberé_ Saint Jean _evite toujours ce dernier mot_ qui
marqueroit _la foi violée, le mariage souillé, et l’alliance rompuë_,
&c.—_L’ Apocalypse avec une Explication; par Messire Jaques Benigne
Bossuet, Evéque de Meaux_. PREF. 26, 29. AVERTISEMENT, p. 321-323. Par.
1690, 12^{o}.

[210] The reason I take to be, That _fornication_, that is, vague
lust, and general prostitution, served best to express the unbridled
and indiscriminate passion of the Jews for the dæmon-worship of their
neighbours: Whereas the crime of _adultery_, though of a blacker
dye, and, in that view, more proper to expose the malignity of their
offence, does not convey the same ideas of universal pollution, being
usually committed, _because_ it is so criminal, with more distinction
and restraint.

[211] Isaiah xxiii. 16, 17. Nahum iii. 4.

[212] —_for it is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon
their idols._ Jer. l. 38. Again: _Babylon hath been a golden cup in the
Lord’s hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken
of her wine, therefore the nations are mad_. Jer. li. 7. Compare Rev.
xvii.—_the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine
of her fornication_.

[213] Mr. Mede. Works, p. 49.

[214] Deut. xxiii. 17.

[215] Rev. xvii. 6 ἐθαύμασα θαῦμα μέγα.

[216] Not held of the civil power, or acknowledged to be so held, but
usurped upon it, and insolently directed against it; as is well known
from ecclesiastical history. _The Pope is not Antichrist: God forbid!_
(says the good Abbé Fleury, with a zeal becoming a member of the Papal
communion.) _But neither is he impeccable, nor has he an absolute
authority in the church over all things both temporal and spiritual_—_Le
pape n’est pas l’Antichrist; à Dieu ne plaise; mais il n’est pas
impeccable, ni monarque absolu dans l’eglise pour le temporel et pour
le spirituel_ [4^{eme} _disc. sur l’hist. ecclesiastique_, p. 173. Par.
1747, 12^{o}.]

The Pope, he says, _is not an absolute monarch in the church over all
things temporal and spiritual_: That is, he _ought not_ to arrogate to
himself the power of an absolute monarch; for that the pope assumes to
be such a monarch, and, in fact, exercised this supreme monarchical
power in the church, through many ages, the learned and candid writer
had indisputably shewn, in the discourse, whence these words are
quoted. But now this _monarchical sovereignty in all things temporal,
as well us spiritual_, is certainly one prophetical note or character,
by which the person or power, styled Antichristian, is distinguished.
Let the Pope, then, be what he will, we are warranted by M. Fleury
himself to conclude, that he hath, at least, this mark of Antichrist.

[217] In the _persecution of heretics_; which M. Bossuet regards as
so little dishonourable to his communion, that he thinks it _a point
not to be called in question_—calls the use of the sword in matters
of religion, _an undoubted right_—and concludes, that _there is no
illusion more dangerous than to consider_ TOLERATION, _as a mark of the
true Church_—_l’exercise de la puissance du glaive dans les matieres de
la religion & de la conscience; chose, que ne peût être revoquée en
doute—le droit est certain—il n’y a point d’illusion plus dangereuse
que de donner_ LA SOUFFRANCE _pour un caractere le vraye Eglise_. _Hist.
des Var._ l. x. p. 51. Par. 1740, 12^{o}.

Thus, this great doctor of the Catholic church, towards the close
of the last century. And just now, another eminent writer of that
communion very roundly defends the murder of the Bohemian martyrs
at Constance, and (what is more provoking still) the _fraud and
ill-faith_, through which the pious and tender-hearted _Fathers_ of
that council rushed to the perpetration of it. _M. Crevier, Hist.
de l’Université de Paris_, t. iii. l. vi. p. 435, &c. Par. 1761,
12^{o}.—Can it be worth while to spend words in fixing this charge of
_intolerance_ on the church of Rome, when her ablest advocates, as
we see, even in our days, openly triumph in it? But, then, hath she
forgotten who it was that the prophet _saw, drunken with the blood of
the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus_—Rev. xvii. 6?.
Alas, no: But she wonders, by what figure of speech _heretics_ are
called _Saints_; and _rebels to the Pope_, _Martyrs of Jesus_.

[218] See Vitringa _Apocalyps. Exp._ p. 603, and the authors cited
by him: But, above all, see Mr. Mede’s exquisite and unanswerable
discourse, entitled, _The Apostacy of the latter times_.

’Tis true, the Bishop of Meaux is pleased to divert himself with one
part of this discourse; I mean, that part, which contains [ch. xvi.
and xvii.] the learned writer’s interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy,
concerning the Gods _Mahuzzim_. He finds something pleasant in this
idea, or rather in this hard word, which he repeats so often, and in
such a way, as if he thought the very sound of _Mahuzzim_, was enough
to expose the comment and Commentator to contempt. _Hist. des Var._ l.
xiii. p. 260, 261. But, after all, the ingenious Prelate would have
done himself no discredit by being a little more serious in discussing
an interpretation, which Sir Isaac Newton adopts without scruple [_Obs.
on the prophecies of Daniel, &c._ p. 192]; and which, in mere respect
to the prophet, he should, at least, have condescended to replace by
some other and more reasonable interpretation. But it is the infirmity
of this lively man, to be jocular _out of season_. Thus, again, he
raillies Luther, for an assertion of his, delivered, it seems, with
some assurance, and, in the form, as he pretends, of a prediction,
_That the Papal power would speedily decline and come to nothing, in
consequence of the Reformation_. The event, he says, has belied the
prophet; the Pope still keeps his ground; and then (in an unlucky
parenthesis) laughs to think, _how many others, besides Luther, will be
dashed to pieces against this_ STONE—_bien d’autres, que Luther, se
briseront contre cette_ PIERRE [_Var._ l. xiii. p. 244]. Now, if the
glory of saying a good thing had not infatuated this Catholic Bishop,
could he have helped starting at his own comparison of a _stone_, as
applied to Luther and the Reformation, when it might so naturally have
put him in mind of that prophetical STONE, which shall one day _become
a great mountain_, and _break in pieces a certain_ IMAGE, _and stand
for ever_ [Dan. ii. 35, 44.]?

[219] L’Eglise, en nous enseignant qu’il est utile de prier les
Saints, nous enseigne à les prier dans ce même esprit de charité, &
selon cet ordre de société fraternelle qui nous porte à demander le
secours de nos freres vivans sur la terre; & le Catechisme du Concile
de Trente conclut de cette doctrine, que si la qualité de Mediateur,
que l’ecriture donne à Jesus Christ, recevoit quelque préjudice de
l’intercession des Saints qui regnent avec Dieu, elle n’eu recevroit
pas moins de l’intercession des fideles qui vivent avec nous.

    M. BOSSUET, _Exposition de la doctrine de l’Eglise Catholique_, p.
    17, 18. Paris, 1671.

[220] Vitringa, p. 603, 604.

[221] Heb. x. 24.

[222] 1 Thess. v. 25. 1 Tim. ii. 1. and elsewhere, _passim_.

[223] Coloss. ii. 18.

[224] Heb. vii. 25.

[225] Page 228-231, and p. 255.

[226] “Whatsoever time of Messiah’s appearing Almighty God pointed out
by Daniel’s LXX Weeks, yet I believe not that any Jew before the event,
could infallibly design the time without some latitude; because they
could not know infallibly where to pitch the head of their accounts,
until the event discovered it: yet in some latitude they might.” _Mede,
Works_, p. 757.

And so in other instances. “I do not believe that the Jews themselves
could certainly tell from which of their _three captivities_ to begin
that reckoning of LXX years, whose end should bring their return from
Babylon, until the event assured them thereof.”
                                               _Mede, Works_, p. 662.

[227] Dan. vii.

[228] 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7.

[229] P. 182-184. But see especially Mede’s Works, p. 657.

[230] Rev. xvii. 7.

[231] Rev. i. 1.

[232] Rev. ii. 8. xxi. 6.

[233] Heb. ii. 3.

[234] Hab. ii. 14. Is. xxvi. 9.

[235] Rev. v. 10.

[236] Ibid. xix. 6.

[237] Rev. xviii. 6.

[238] Rev. xviii. 4.

[239] M. de Meaux: _L’Apocalypse avec une explication. Avertisement aux
Protestants_, p. 303, &c. Par. 1690.

[240] Sermon VIII.

[241] M. Daillé.

[242] Lord Falkland, Lord Digby, Dr. Jer. Taylor, &c.

[243] Serm. I. II. III.

[244] Serm. IV.

[245] Serm. V. VI.

[246] Serm. VII. VIII.

[247] Serm. IX. X.

[248] Serm. XI.

[249] Sermon XII.

[250] Verum non est desperandum. Fortasse, _non canimus surdis_. Nec
enim tam in malo statu res est, ut desint sanæ mentes, quibus et
veritas placeat, et monstratum sibi rectum iter et videant et sequantur.
                       _Lactant. Div. Inst._ l. v. p. 417. _ed. Sparke_.

[251] Ἐγελᾶτο δὲ τὰ θεῖα, καὶ τοὺς τῶν προφητῶν θεσμοὺς ὥσπερ ἀγυρτικὰς
λογοποιΐας, ἐχλεύαζον·
                                Fl. Joseph. B. J. l. iv. 6.

[252] Gal. v. 1.

[253] 2 Tim. iii. 16.

[254] Acts xiii. 40, 41.

[255] Judith iii. 8.

[256] See his Posthumous Works, published by Lord Sheffield, 2 vols. in
4to. Lond. 1796. Vol. I. p. 463.


[Transcriber’s Note:

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.

Greek words beginning with ϖ have had the character replaced with π.]