Part 20

[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.