Part 8

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.