Part 13

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.