Part 14

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].