{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_54539/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_54539","id":"gutenberg_54539","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54539","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of England -- Sermons","Dialogues, English","Great Britain -- Civilization -- 17th century","Poetry -- History and criticism","Romances -- History and criticism"],"text":"[Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nCharacters preceded by a caret(^) are in superscript, and are enclosed\nin curly brackets, i. e. {th}.\n\nItalicized text delimited by underscores.\n\nThis project uses utf-8 encoded characters. If some characters are not\nreadable, check your settings of your browser to ensure you have a\ndefault font installed that can display utf-8 characters.]\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n\n  WORKS\n\n  OF\n\n  RICHARD HURD, D. D.\n\n  LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.\n\n  VOL. V.\n\n\n  Printed by J. Nichols and Son,\n  Red Lion Passage, Fleet-Street, London.\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n\n  WORKS\n\n  OF\n\n  RICHARD HURD, D. D.\n\n  LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.\n\n  IN EIGHT VOLUMES.\n\n  VOL. V.\n\n  [Illustration]\n\n  LONDON:\n  PRINTED FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, STRAND.\n  1811.\n\n\n\n\nTHEOLOGICAL WORKS.\n\nVOL. I.\n\n\n\n\nTWELVE SERMONS\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\nTO THE STUDY OF\n\nTHE PROPHECIES.\n\n\n\n\nAN\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nTO THE STUDY OF THE\n\nPROPHECIES\n\nCONCERNING THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH;\n\nAND, IN PARTICULAR,\n\nCONCERNING THE CHURCH OF PAPAL ROME:\n\nIN TWELVE SERMONS,\n\nPREACHED IN LINCOLN\u2019S-INN-CHAPEL,\n\nAT THE LECTURE OF\n\nTHE RIGHT REV. WILLIAM WARBURTON,\n\nLORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER.\n\n  _Ita, si potuero, stylo moderabor meo, ut nec ea, qu\u00e6 supersint,\n  dicam, nec ea, qu\u00e6 satis sint, pr\u00e6termittam._\n                                    Augustin. C. D. l. xvii. c. 1.\n\n\n\n\nTO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE\n\nWILLIAM, LORD MANSFIELD,\n\nLORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND,\n\nAND\n\nTO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE\n\nSIR JOHN EARDLEY WILMOT, KNT.\n\nLATE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COMMON PLEAS,\n\nTRUSTEES FOR THIS LECTURE,\n\nTHE FOLLOWING SERMONS\n\nARE MOST HUMBLY INSCRIBED\n\nBY THE AUTHOR,\n\n                     R. HURD.\n\n  LINCOLN\u2019S-INN,\n  MARCH 2, 1772.\n\n\n\n\nEXTRACT\n\nFROM THE\n\nDEED OF TRUST\n\nFOR FOUNDING THIS LECTURE.\n\n\nAn Indenture, bearing date July 21, 1768, sets forth, \u201cThat the right\nreverend WILLIAM Lord Bishop of Gloucester has transferred the sum of\n500_l. Bank four per cent. annuities consolidated_, to the right\nhonourable WILLIAM LORD MANSFIELD, Lord Chief Justice of his Majesty\u2019s\nCourt of King\u2019s Bench, the right honourable SIR JOHN EARDLEY WILMOT,\nLord Chief Justice of his Majesty\u2019s Court of Common Pleas, and the\nhonourable CHARLES YORKE[1], of Lincoln\u2019s-Inn, in the county of\nMiddlesex, UPON TRUST, for the purpose of founding a _Lecture_, in\nthe form of a Sermon, _To prove the truth of Revealed Religion in\ngeneral, and of the Christian in particular, from the completion of the\nProphecies in the Old and New Testament, which relate to the Christian\nchurch, especially to the apostacy of Papal Rome_: That, in case of\nany vacancy in this trust by the decease of any one or more of the\nabove-mentioned Trustees, _the place or places shall be filled up, from\ntime to time and as occasion may require, by the surviving Trustees,\nor Trustee, or by the Executors of the survivor of them_: That the\nTrustees _shall appoint the Preacher of Lincoln\u2019s-Inn for the time\nbeing, or some other able Divine of the Church of England_, to preach\nthis Lecture: That the Lecture shall be preached every year _in the\nChapel of Lincoln\u2019s-Inn_ (_if the Society give leave_[2]) _and on the\nfollowing days, viz. the first Sunday after Michaelmas Term, the Sunday\nnext before and the Sunday next after Hilary Term_: That the Lecturer\nshall not preach the said Lecture longer than _for the term of_ FOUR\nYEARS, _and shall not again be nominated to preach the same_: And, when\nthe term of four years is expired, that the said Lecturer shall _print\nand publish, or cause to be printed and published, all the Sermons or\nLectures, that shall have been so preached by him_.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n  CONTENTS\n\n  OF\n\n  THE FIFTH VOLUME.\n\n\n  SERMON I.\n\n  False ideas of Prophecy.\n\n  2 PETER i. 21.\n\n  _Prophecy came not in old time by the will of\n  man: but holy men of God spake, as they\n  were moved by the Spirit of God._\n\n\n  SERMON II.\n\n  The true idea of Prophecy.\n\n  REV. xix. 10.\n\n  _The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy._           21\n\n\n  SERMON III.\n\n  Conclusions from the true idea of Prophecy.\n\n  REV. xix. 10.\n\n  _The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy._           44\n\n\n  SERMON IV.\n\n  The general argument from Prophecy.\n\n  JOHN xiii. 19.\n\n  _Now I tell you before it come, that, when it\n  is come to pass, ye may believe, that I am\n  He._                                                          74\n\n\n  SERMON V.\n\n  Prophecies concerning Christ\u2019s _first coming_.\n\n  ISAIAH xlii. 9.\n\n  _Behold, the former things are come to pass,\n  and new things do I declare: before they\n  spring forth, I tell you of them._                           102\n\n\n  SERMON VI.\n\n  Prophecies concerning Christ\u2019s _second coming_.\n\n  ISAIAH xlii. 9.\n\n  _Behold, the former things are come to pass,\n  and new things do I declare: before they\n  spring forth, I tell you of them._                           132\n\n\n  SERMON VII.\n\n  Prophecies concerning Antichrist.\n\n  1 Ep. JOHN ii. 18.\n\n  \u2014_ye have heared that Antichrist shall come._               171\n\n\n  SERMON VIII.\n\n  Prejudices against the doctrine of Antichrist.\n\n  1 Ep. JOHN ii. 18.\n\n  \u2014_ye have heared that Antichrist shall come._               205\n\n\n  SERMON IX.\n\n  The Prophetic style considered.\n\n  EZEKIEL xx. 49.\n\n  \u2014_They say of me, Doth he not speak parables?_              233\n\n\n  SERMON X.\n\n  The style and method of the Apocalypse.\n\n  EZEKIEL xx. 49.\n\n  \u2014_They say of me, Doth he not speak parables?_              260\n\n\n  SERMON XI.\n\n  Prophetic characters of Antichrist.\n\n  LUKE xii. 56.\n\n  \u2014_How is it, that ye do not discern this time?_             286\n\n\n  SERMON XII.\n\n  Uses of this Inquiry into the Prophecies\u2014Conclusion.\n\n  REV. xxii. 7.\n\n  _Behold, I come quickly: Blessed is he that\n  keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this\n  book._                                                   333-352\n\n\n  APPENDIX:\n\n  _Containing an anonymous Letter to the Author\n  of these Sermons, with his Answer\n  to it._                                                      363\n\n\n\n\nSERMON I.\n\nFALSE IDEAS OF PROPHECY.\n\n2 PETER, i. 21.\n\n _Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God\n spake, as they were moved by the Spirit of God._\n\n\nThe argument from prophecy, in support of the Christian revelation,\nwould be thought more conclusive, at least would be more distinctly\napprehended, if men could be kept from mixing their own prejudices and\npreconceptions with it.\n\nThe general question may be expressed thus\u2014\u201cWhether the predictions\nin the Old and New Testament do not appear to have been so far, and\nin such sense, fulfilled, as to afford a reasonable conviction, that\nthey _came not_, as the text speaks, _by the will of man, but from the\nSpirit of God_.\u201d\n\nIn examining this question, the predictions themselves cannot be too\ndiligently studied, or too cautiously applied: But, while this work\nis carrying on, we are still to suppose, and should not for a moment\nforget, that they _may_ be, what they manifestly claim to be, of divine\nsuggestion; I mean, we are to admit, not the truth indeed, but the\npossibility, of such suggestion, till we can fairly make it appear that\nthey are of human contrivance, only.\n\nIt will not be denied, that the tenour of Scripture, as well as\nthe text, clearly asserts the divine original and direction of the\nprophecies. A just reasoner on the subject will, therefore, proceed\non this supposition, and only try whether it be well founded. He\nwill consider, whether the construction of the prophecies, and the\napplication of them, be such, as may accord to those pretensions; and\nwill not argue against them on other principles, which they do not\nadmit, or suppose. All this is plainly nothing more than what may be\nexpected from a fair inquirer, and what the rules of good reasoning\nexact from him.\n\nThe use of this conduct would be, To prevent, or set aside, all those\nfancies and imaginations which too frequently mislead inquirers\ninto the evidence of prophecy; which fill their minds with needless\nperplexities, and disgrace their books with frivolous and impertinent\ndisquisitions. And, because I take it to be of principal moment, that\nthis _use_ be perfectly seen and understood, I shall, _first_, apply\nmyself to justify and explain it.\n\nIt is true that _prophecy_, in the very idea of that term, at least in\nthe scriptural idea of it, implies the divine agency; and that, exerted\nnot merely in giving the faculty itself, but in directing all its\noperations.\n\nYet I know not how it is that, when men address themselves to the study\nof the prophetic scriptures, they are apt to let this so necessary\nidea slip out of their minds; and to discourse upon them just as they\nwould or might do, on the supposition that the prophet was left at\nliberty to dispense this gift in all respects, as he should think\nproper. No wonder then, that they should misconceive of its character,\nand entertain very different notions about the exercise of this power\nfrom what the Scriptures give them of it. Nay it is no wonder that\nthey should even treat the subject with some scorn, while they judge\nof it by the rule of human prudence, and not of divine wisdom: for,\nthough they would readily own themselves incapable of pronouncing on\nthe secret counsels of God, if prophecy, in its whole administration,\nbe regarded as proceeding merely from him; yet, from their knowledge of\nhuman nature, they would think, and with some reason, they were well\nable to conceive how the spirit of prophecy would be administered, if\nman had the disposal of this spirit committed to him.\n\nNow it happens, as I said, (by an inexcusable perverseness, or\ninattention, indeed, yet in fact it so happens) that, to the\nconsideration of the argument from prophecy, as applied to the proof of\nthe Christian religion, many inquirers bring with them this strange and\nfatal prejudice; and then their reasonings, or rather conjectures, on\nthe SUBJECT, the END, and the DISPENSATION of prophecy, are only such,\nas this prejudice may be expected to inspire.\n\nI. Judging for ourselves, and by the light of human investigation only,\nthere might be some ground for supposing, that, if it should please God\nat any time to confer the gift of prophecy on his favoured servants,\nthey would be solely or chiefly commissioned to unfold the future\nfortunes of the most conspicuous states and kingdoms in the world: that\nso divine a power would embrace, as its peculiar object, the counsels\nand enterprizes, the successes and triumphs of the most illustrious\nnations; those especially, which should rise to the summit of empire by\ngenerous plans of policy, and by the efforts of public virtue; of _free\nstates_, in a word, such as we know to have flourished in the happier\nages of Greece, and such as we still contemplate with admiration in\nthe vast and awful fabric of Consular Rome. This we might think a fit\nobject for the prophetic spirit to present to us; as corresponding in\nsome degree to the sublime character of a prophet; and as most worthy,\nin our conceptions, of the divine attention and regard.\n\nBut how are we surprized to find that this astonishing power, the most\nsignal gift of Heaven to mankind, hath, in its immediate application\nat least, respected, many times, obscure individuals, whose names and\nmemory are only preserved in one barbarous chronicle, hath been chiefly\nemployed, and, as we are ready to express it, thrown away on one single\nstate, or rather family; inconsiderable in the extent of its power or\nterritory; sequestered from the rest of the nations, and hardly known\namong them[3]; with some mention, perhaps, of greater things, but\nincidentally touched, as it may seem, and as they chanced to have some\nconnexion with the interests of this sordid people!\n\nWas this a stage, on which it might be expected that the God of heaven\nwould condescend to display the wonders of his prescience; when He\nkept aloof, as it were, from more august theatres, and would scarcely\nvouchsafe to have the skirts of his glory seen by the nobler and more\ndistinguished nations of the World?\n\nSuch questions as these are sometimes asked. But they are surely\nasked by those, who consider the prophets, as acting wholly on human\nviews and motives; and not as over-ruled in all their predictions by\n_the spirit of God_. For it is natural enough for vain man, if left\nto himself in the exercise of the prophetic power, to turn his view\ntowards such objects as appear to him great, in preference to others;\nand to estimate that greatness by the lustre of fame, in which they\nshine out to the observation of mankind. But a moment\u2019s reflection may\nshew the probability, the possibility at least, that _God\u2019s thoughts\nare not as our thoughts_; and that, if the prophet\u2019s foresight be under\nthe divine influence, there may be reason enough to direct it towards\nsuch scenes and objects, as we might be apt to undervalue or overlook.\nIt is even very conceivable, that, if God be the dispenser of prophecy,\nand not man, all that seems great and illustrious in human affairs may\nto his all-judging eye appear small and contemptible[4]; and, on the\nother hand, what we account as nothing, may, for infinite reasons,\nunknown to us, but so far as he is pleased to discover them, be of\nthat importance as to merit the attention of all his prophets from the\nfoundation of the world.\n\nIt is evident, then, that to reason in this manner on the subject of\ndivine prophecy, is to suffer ourselves to be misled by a poor and\nvulgar prejudice; and to forget, what we should ever have present to\nus, the claim of God\u2019s prophets to speak, not as themselves _will_, but\nas they are _moved by his Spirit_.\n\nII. The END, or ultimate purpose of prophetic illumination, is another\npoint, on which many persons are apt to entertain strange fancies, and\nto frame unwarrantable conclusions, when they give themselves leave to\nargue on the low supposition, before mentioned.\n\n1. It is then hastily surmized that the scriptural prophecies, if any\nsuch be acknowledged, could only be designed, like the Pagan oracles,\nto sooth the impatient mind under its anxiety about future events;\nto signify beforehand to states or individuals, engaged in high or\nhazardous undertakings, what the issue of them would be, that so they\nmight suit their conduct to the information of the prophet, and either\npursue their purpose with vigour, or expect their impending fate with\nresignation. For, what other or worthier end, will some say, can\nHeaven propose to itself by these extraordinary communications, than\nto prepare and qualify such events as it decrees to bring to pass; to\nanimate desponding virtue, on the one hand, or to relieve predestined\nmisery, on the other; to adapt itself, in short, to our necessities\nby a clear discovery of its will in those many intricate situations,\nwhich perplex human prudence, elude human foresight, and, but for\nthis previous admonition, would bear too hard on the natural force,\nor infirmity of the human mind? Some such idea, as this, was plainly\nentertained by those of the Pagan philosophers who concluded, _from the\nexistence of a divine power, that there must needs be such a thing as\ndivination_[5]. They thought the attributes of their gods, if any such\nthere were, concerned in giving some notice of futurity to mankind.\n\n2. Others, again, encouraged in this conjectural ingenuity by partial\nviews of scripture, come to persuade themselves that prophecy is an\nact of _special grace and favour_, not to this or that state, or\nindividuals, indiscriminately, as either may seem to stand in need of\nit; but to one peculiar and chosen people, who, on some account or\nother, had merited this extraordinary distinction.\n\nSelf-love seems to have suggested this idea to the ancient and modern\nJews; and many others, I doubt, are ready enough to suppose with them,\nthat prophecy, under the Mosaic dispensation, had no other reasonable\nuse, or end.\n\n3. Lastly, there are those who erect their thoughts to nobler\ncontemplations, and conclude that this intercourse between heaven and\nearth can only be carried on with the sublime view of preserving an\nawful sense of Providence in an impious and careless world.\n\nVanity, or superstition, may they say, has suggested to particular men,\nor to societies of men, that their personal or civil concerns are of\nmoment enough to be the subject of divine prophecies, vouchsafed merely\nfor their own proper relief or satisfaction. But nothing less than the\nmaintenance of God\u2019s supreme authority over his moral creation could\nbe an object worthy of his interposing in the affairs of men, in so\nremarkable a manner. To keep alive in their minds a prevailing sense of\ntheir dependance upon him, is, then, the ultimate end of prophecy: and\nwhat more suitable (will they perhaps add, when warmed with this moral\nenthusiasm,) to the best ideas we can form of divine wisdom, than that\nthis celestial light should be afforded to such ages or nations as are\nmost in want of that great and salutary principle?\n\nThere is reason to believe, that many of the ancient speculatists\nreasoned thus on the subject of divination. For, as they argued _from\nthe existence of their gods, to the necessity of divination_; so,\nagain, they turned the argument the other way, _and from the reality of\ndivination, inferred the existence and providence of their gods_[6].\nIn drawing the _former_ conclusion, they shewed themselves to be in\nthe system of those who maintain, that the end of prophecy is _the\ninstruction of men in their civil or personal concerns_: when they drew\nthe _latter_, they seemed to espouse the more enlarged sentiments of\nsuch as make the end of prophecy to be, _The instruction of men in the\ngeneral concerns of religion_.\n\nI omit other instances, that might be given; and concern myself no\nfurther with these, than just to observe from them; That the foundation\nof all such systems is laid in the prejudices of their respective\npatrons; conjecturing rather what _use_ might be made of this\nfaculty, and to what purpose men, according to their different views\nor capacities, would probably apply it, than regarding it, with due\nreverence, as directed by the spirit of God. For then they would see,\nthat not one of those ends, nor any other of human conjecture, could be\nsafely relied upon, as being that of prophetic inspiration. Not that\nall these ends need be rejected as manifestly unworthy of the divine\nintention; perhaps, each of them, in a certain sense, and with some\nproper limitation, might without impiety be conceived to enter into\nit. But neither could it be presumed, if none of those ends could have\nbeen pointed out, that therefore there was no reasonable end of divine\nprophecy; nor could it with modesty be affirmed that the noblest of\nthese ends was certainly that, which the wisdom of God proposed chiefly\nand ultimately to accomplish by it, unless the information had been\ngiven by himself.\n\nIII. But this folly of commenting on prophecy by the false lights of\nthe imagination is never more conspicuous, than when the DISPENSATION\nof this gift, I mean the _mode_ of its conveyance, comes to exercise\nthe curiosity of presumptuous men.\n\n\u201cIf it be true, will some say, that the Supreme Being hath at any time\ncondescended to enlighten human ignorance by a discovery of future\nevents, these divine notices, whatever the _end_ or _subject_ of them\nmight be, must have been given in terms so precise, and so clearly\npredictive of the events to which they are applied, that no doubt could\nremain either about the interpretation or completion of them.\n\nOn the contrary, these pretended prophecies are expressed so\nambiguously or obscurely, are so involved in metaphor and darkened by\nhieroglyphics, that no clear and certain sense can be affixed to them,\nand the sagacity of a second prophet seems wanting to explain the\nmeaning of the first.\n\nThen, again, when we come to verify these predictions by the light\nof history, the correspondence is so slight many times, and so\nindeterminate, that none but an easy faith can assure itself, that\nthey have, in a proper sense, been fulfilled. At the least, there\nis always room for some degree of suspense and hesitation: either\nthe accomplishment fails in some particulars, or other events might\nbe pointed out, to which the prophecy equally corresponds: so that\nthe result is, a want of that entire and perfect conviction, which\nprophecy, no doubt, was intended to give, and, when fulfilled, must\nsupply[7].\n\nIndeed, continue these inquirers, if our prophecies had been derived\nfrom no higher an original, than that of Pagan oracles, we might well\nenough have supposed them to be of this stamp. When men had nothing to\ntrust to, in their predictions, but their own ingenuity, they did well\nto deal in equivocal or enigmatic expression, and might leave it to\nchance, or to the passions of their votaries, to find an application\nfor their random conjectures. But when the prophet is, what he assumes\nto be, an interpreter of heaven, he may surely afford to speak plainly,\nand to deliver nothing to us but what shall appear, with the fullest\nevidence, to be accomplished in the event.\u201d\n\nThe invidious comparison, here made, between Scriptural prophecies\nand Pagan oracles, will be considered in its place. To the general\nprinciple, assumed by these inquirers, _That divine prophecy must be\ndelivered with the utmost clearness and perspicuity, and fulfilled\nwith irresistible evidence_, it may be sufficient to reply, as before,\nThat, though these inquirers use the words, _divine prophecy_, they\nmanifestly argue on the supposition of its human original, or at least\napplication. In this latter case, indeed, it is likely enough that the\nprophet, for his own credit, or for what he might fancy to be the sole\nend of prophecy, might chuse, if he were entrusted with the knowledge\nof future events, to predict them with all possible clearness, and in\nsuch sort that obstinacy itself must see and admit the completion of\nthem: but then, on the _former_ supposition, that the prophet was only\nthe minister and instrument of the divine counsels, in the high office\ncommitted to him, they will do well to answer, at their leisure, the\nfollowing questions.\n\n\u201cHow do they know in what manner, and with what circumstances, it was\nfit for divine wisdom to dispense a knowledge of futurity to mankind?\nHow can they previously determine the degree of evidence with which\na prediction must be either given or fulfilled? What assurance have\nthey, that no reasonable ends could be served by prophecies, expressed\nwith some obscurity, and accomplished in a sense much below what may\nseem necessary to unavoidable conviction? Can they even pretend, on\nany clear principles of reason, that very important ends, perhaps\nthe most important, may not be answered by that mode of conveyance,\nwhich appears to them so exceptionable? Can they, in a word, determine\nbefore-hand, I do not say with certainty, but with any colour of\nprobability; what _must_ be the character of divine prophecy, when they\nknow not the reason, most undoubtedly not _all_ the reasons, why it is\ngiven, and have even no right to demand, that it should be given at\nall?\u201d\n\nTill these, and other questions of the like sort, be pertinently\nanswered, it must be in vain to censure the ways of Providence, as not\ncorresponding to our imperfect and short-sighted views.\n\nSo much for that _capital_ prejudice taken from the supposed obscurity\nof the scriptural prophecies. Of _smaller_ scruples and difficulties\non this head, there is no end.\n\nMen may ask, for instance, why the instruments employed in conveying\nthese celestial notices to mankind, are frequently so mean and\ninconsiderable? The subject of a prediction is the downfall of some\nmighty state, or the fortune of its governours. Why then is this\nimportant revelation intrusted to an obscure priest, or sordid peasant,\nin preference to the great persons, more immediately concerned in it[8]?\n\nAgain; some momentous events have been signified in dreams: why not to\npersons awake, and in the full possession of their best faculties[9]?\n\nAnd then, of those dreams, why are they sometimes sent to one man, and\nthe interpretation of them reserved for another[10]?\n\nWhy\u2014But I have done with these frivolous interrogatories; which,\nthough pressed with all the advantage of Cicero\u2019s rhetoric, have really\nno force against _Pagan divination_; and therefore surely none, against\n_Scriptural prophecy_; I mean, in the opinion of those who respect it\nleast.\n\nIn truth, they who put these questions (arguing, as they must do, on\nthe supposition that prophecy is divinely inspired) cannot excuse their\npresumption, even to themselves: and they, to whom such questions are\nproposed, will not, if they be wise, so much as attempt to resolve\nthem. For they have the nature of arguments addressed not only to the\n_ignorance_, as we say, of the disputant, but to an ignorance clearly\n_invincible_ by all the powers of human reason. Now to arguments of\nthis sort\u2014_I know not_[11]\u2014is the answer of good sense, as well as of\nmodesty, and, to a just reasoner, more satisfactory by far, than any\nsolution whatever of the difficulty proposed[12].\n\nNot that reason is to be wholly silenced on the argument of prophecy:\nfor then every species of imposture would be ready to flow in upon\nus. The _use_, we should make both of that faculty, and of these\npreliminary considerations on the _subject_, the _end_, and the\n_dispensation_ of prophecy is, briefly, this, To inquire, whether\n_any_ prophecies have been given\u2014in what sense they are reasonably\nto be interpreted\u2014and how far, and whether in any proper sense, they\nhave been fulfilled: to examine them, in a word, by their own claims,\nand on the footing of their own pretensions; that is, to argue on the\nsupposition that they may be divine, till they can be evidently shewn\nto be otherwise.\n\nThis is clearly to act suitably to our own faculties; to keep within\nthe sphere of our duty; and to reap the proper benefit, whatever\nit be, of a sober inquiry into the authority, and character, and\naccomplishment of the prophetic scriptures.\n\nAll the rest is idle cavil, and miserable presumption; equally\nrepugnant to the clearest dictates of right reason, and to that respect\nwhich every serious man will think due to the subject, and to himself.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON II.\n\nTHE TRUE IDEA OF PROPHECY.\n\nREV. xix. 10.\n\n_The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy._\n\n\nIt is very clear in what manner common sense instructs us to prosecute\nall inquiries into the divine conduct. Wise men _collect_, from what\nthey see done in the system of nature, so far as they are able to\ncollect it, the intention of its author. They will conclude, in like\nmanner, from what they find delivered in the system of revelation, what\nthe views and purposes of the revealer were.\n\nProphecy, which makes so considerable a part of that system, must,\ntherefore, be its own interpreter. My meaning is, that, setting\naside all presumptuous imaginations of our own, we are to take our\nideas of what prophecy _should_ be, from what, in fact, we find it\nto have been. If it be true (as the Apostle says, and as the thing\nitself speaks) that _the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit\nof God_[13], there cannot possibly be any way of acquiring right\nnotions of prophecy, but by attending to what the spirit of prophecy\nhath revealed of itself. They, who admit the divine original of those\nscriptures, which attest the reality, and alone, as they suppose,\ncontain the records, of this extraordinary dispensation, are more than\nabsurd, are impious, if they desert this principle. And they, who\nreject or controvert their claim to such original, cannot, on any other\nprinciple, argue pertinently against that dispensation.\n\nIn short, believers and unbelievers, whether they would support, or\noverturn, the system of prophecy, must be equally governed by the\nrepresentation given of it in scripture. The _former_ must not presume,\non any other grounds, to assert the wisdom and fitness of that system:\nand the _latter_ will then take a reasonable method of discrediting,\nif by such means they can discredit, the pretensions of it. For, as to\nvindicate prophecy on any principles but its own, can do it no honour;\nso, to oppose it on any other, can neither prejudice the cause itself,\nnor serve any reasonable end of the opposer.\n\nTo scripture then we must go for all the information we would have\nconcerning the _use_ and _intent_ of prophecy: and the text, to look no\nfarther, will clearly reveal this great secret to us.\n\nBut, before we proceed to reason from the text, in which, as it is\npretended, this discovery is made, it will be necessary to explain its\ntrue meaning.\n\nSt. John, in this chapter of the Revelations, from which the text is\ntaken, had been shewn the downfall of Babylon, and the consequent\nexaltation of the church, in its closest union with Christ, prefigured\nunder the Jewish idea of a _marriage_. To so delightful a vision, the\nAngel, in whose presence, and by whose ministry, this scene of glory\nhad been disclosed, subjoins this triumphant admonition\u2014_Write_, says\nhe; _Blessed are they which are called to the marriage of the Lamb.\nThese are the true sayings of God._\n\nThe Apostle, struck with this emphatic address, and contemplating with\ngrateful admiration so joyful a state of things, and the divinity of\nthat fore-sight by which it was predicted, _falls down at the angel\u2019s\nfeet to worship him. But he said into me, See, thou do it not; I am thy\nfellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus:\nworship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy._\n\nThe sense is plainly this: Direct thy acknowledgment for this important\ndiscovery, and that religious adoration, which it inspires, to God only\nwho revealed it, and not to _me_, who am but thy fellow-servant in this\noffice of bearing testimony to Jesus: I said _in bearing testimony\nto Jesus_; for know, that _the spirit of prophecy_, with which I am\nendowed, and by which I am enabled to foretell these great things, is\nbut, in other words, _the testimony of Jesus_; it has no other use\nor end, but to do honour to him; the prophet, whether he be angel or\nman, is only the minister of God to bear witness to his Son; and his\ncommission is ultimately directed to this one purpose of manifesting\nthe glories of his kingdom. In discharging this prophetic office, which\nthou admirest so much, I am then but the witness of Jesus, and so to be\nconsidered by thee in no other light than that of thy fellow-servant.\n\nIt is evident from the expression, that the text was intended to\ngive some _special_ instruction to the Apostle, whose misguided\nworship afforded the occasion of it. For, if the design had merely\nbeen to enforce the general conclusion\u2014_worship God_\u2014the premises\nneed only have been\u2014_I am the servant of God, as well as thou_\u2014for\nfrom these premises it had followed, that therefore God, and not the\nAngel, was to be worshiped. But the premises are not simply, _I am thy\nfellow-servant_, but _I am the fellow-servant of those who have the\ntestimony of Jesus_: which clause indeed infers the same conclusion,\nas the former; but, as not being necessary to infer it (for the\nconclusion had been just and complete without it) was clearly added to\nconvey a precise idea of prophecy itself, as being wholly subservient\nto Christ, and having no other use or destination, under its various\nforms and in all the diversities of its administration, but to bear\ntestimony to him. Therefore the Angel says emphatically, in explanation\nof that latter clause,\u2014_For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit\nof prophecy_\u2014or, as the sentence, in our translation, should have\nrun[14], the order of its parts being inverted, _For the spirit of\nprophecy is the testimony of Jesus_.\n\nIt may not be pretended that no more was meant by the text, than that\n_the particular_ prophecy, here delivered, was in attestation of\nJesus: for then it would have been expressed with that limitation. The\nterms, on the other hand, are absolute and indefinite\u2014_the spirit of\nprophecy_\u2014whence we cannot but conclude that prophecy, in general, is\nthe subject of the proposition.\n\nWe have here, then, a remarkable piece of intelligence conveyed to us\n(incidentally indeed conveyed, but not therefore the less remarkable)\nconcerning the nature and genius of prophecy. The text is properly\na key put into our hands, to open to us the mysteries of that\ndispensation; which had in view ultimately the person of Christ and\nthe various revolutions of his kingdom\u2014_The spirit of prophecy is_,\nuniversally, _the testimony of Jesus_[15].\n\nThe expression, as I have shewn, is so precise as to leave no\nreasonable doubt of its meaning. Yet it may further serve to justify\nthis interpretation, if we reflect, how exactly it agrees with all that\nthe Jewish prophets were understood to intend, and what Jesus himself\nand his apostles assert was intended, by their predictions.\n\nIt were endless to enumerate all the Prophecies of the Old Testament\nwhich have been supposed to point at Jesus: and the controversy\nconcerning the application of _some_ prophecies to him may be thought\ndifficult. But it is very certain that the Jews, before the coming of\nChrist, gave this construction to their scriptures: they even looked\nbeyond the letter of their sacred books, and conceived _the testimony_\nof the Messiah to be the soul and end of the commandment. _The spirit\nof prophecy_ was firmly believed to intend that _testimony_, that the\nexpectation was general of some such person, as Jesus, to appear among\nthem, and at the very time in which he made his appearance. This,\nI say, is an undoubted _fact_, what account soever may be given of\nit; and so far evinces that the _principle_, delivered in the text,\ncorresponds entirely to the idea which the fathers entertained of the\nprophetic spirit.\n\nNext, Jesus himself appeals to the _spirit of prophecy_, as bearing\nwitness to his person and dispensation. _Search the Scriptures_,\nsays he to the Jews, _for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and\nthey are they which testify of_ ME[16]. Two things are observable in\nthese words. 1. If the Jews thought they had _eternal life_ in their\nscriptures, they must needs have understood them in a spiritual sense;\nfor the _letter_ of them taught no such thing: and I know not what\n_other_ spiritual sense, that should lead them to the expectation of\n_eternal life_, they could put on their scriptures, but that prophetic,\nor typical sense, which respected the Messiah. 2. Jesus here expressly\nasserts, that their scriptures _testified of him_. How generally they\ndid so, he explained at large in that remarkable conversation with two\nof his disciples, after his resurrection, when, _beginning at Moses\nand_ ALL _the prophets, he expounded unto them in_ ALL _the scriptures\nthe things concerning himself_[17].\n\nThe _Apostles_ of Jesus are frequent and large in the same appeal to\nthe spirit of prophecy. _Those things_, says St. Peter to the Jews,\n_which God had shewed by the mouth of_ ALL _his prophets, that Christ\nshould suffer, he hath so fulfilled_[18]. And, again, after quoting the\nauthority of Moses, _Yea, and_ ALL _the prophets from Samuel, and those\nthat follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of\nthese days_[19].\n\nSt. Paul seems to have composed some entire epistles[20], with a view\nof shewing that Christ was prefigured in the Law itself, and that He\nwas, in truth, the substance of the whole Jewish dispensation. So\nthoroughly, according to him, did _the spirit of prophecy_ pervade that\nsystem, and so clearly did it bear testimony to Jesus! Whence, in his\napology before Agrippa, we find him asserting of the whole Christian\ndoctrine, _that he said none other things than those which the\nprophets and Moses did say should come_[21].\n\nMore citations cannot be necessary on so plain a point. And I bring\nthese to shew, not the truth of the principle itself (which is not now\nunder consideration) but the certainty of the interpretation, here\ngiven to the text. For I make it say no more (though it says it indeed\nmore precisely) than the scriptures themselves were _understood_ by\nthe Jews to say, and are represented by Jesus and his Apostles, as\n_actually_ saying, when I affirm its sense to be, \u201cThat the scope and\nend of prophecy was the testimony of Jesus.\u201d\n\nOn this principle, then, we are to regulate all our reasonings on the\nsubject of prophecy. They who maintain, and they who would confute,\nits pretensions, must equally go on this supposition. If the system of\nprophecy can be justified, or so far as it can be justified, on these\ngrounds, the defence must be thought solid and satisfactory; because\nthose grounds are not arbitrarily assumed, but are such as that system\nitself acknowledges. On the contrary, whatever advantage may be fairly\ntaken of those grounds to discredit prophecy, must needs be allowed,\nfor the same reason.\n\nAgain: On the believer\u2019s scheme, that prophecy is of divine\ninspiration, there can be no _presumption_ in arguing from the grounds,\nhere supposed, in favour of prophecy. Because, though all conclusions\nfrom a principle of human invention, must be hazardous and rash, yet\nfrom a principle of divine authority, many sober and just inferences\nmay be drawn. For it is one thing, to discover a principle, and\nanother, to argue justly and cogently from it.\n\nOn the other hand, the unbeliever, who regards the whole system\nof prophecy as of human invention, must yet be allowed to argue\npertinently from the same grounds, because they are the proper grounds\nof that system: his arguments may be rightly formed, though the\nprinciple, from which he argues, appear to him of no authority. The\nrules of logic will indeed oblige him to argue on that principle; for,\notherwise, he combats, not his adversary\u2019s position, but a phantom of\nhis own raising.\n\nHaving premised thus much concerning the right interpretation of the\ntext, and the important relation it bears to the present subject, I\nshould now proceed to inquire what conclusions naturally and fairly\nresult from it. For from this assumption, that _Jesus is the end\nof prophecy_, it will, I think, follow very evidently, that the\ngreater part of those objections which make so much noise, and are so\nconfidently urged, on the subject of prophecy, have no force at all in\nthem.\n\nBut, before we enter on that task, it may be useful to consider more\nparticularly what the ASSUMED PRINCIPLE itself is, and to pause a while\nin contemplation of this idea.\n\nThe text, as here interpreted, and in full consonance with the tenor\nof the sacred writings, implies this fact\u2014that _Prophecy_ in general\n(that is, all the prophecies of the Old and New Testament) hath its\nultimate accomplishment in the history and dispensation of Jesus.\n\nBut now, if we look into those writings, we find, 1. That prophecy is\nof a prodigious extent; that it commenced from the fall of man, and\nreaches to the consummation of all things: that, for many ages, it\nwas delivered darkly, to few persons, and with large intervals from\nthe date of one prophecy to that of another; but, at length, became\nmore clear, more frequent, and was uniformly carried on in the line of\none people, separated from the rest of the world, among other reasons\nassigned, for this principally, to be the repository of the divine\noracles: that, with some intermission, the spirit of prophecy subsisted\namong that people, to the coming of Christ: that He himself and his\nApostles exercised this power in the most conspicuous manner; and\nleft behind them many predictions, recorded in the books of the New\nTestament, which profess to respect very distant events, and even run\nout to the end of time, or, in St. John\u2019s expression, to that period,\n_when the mystery of God shall be perfected_[22].\n\n2. Further, besides the extent of this prophetic scheme, the dignity\nof the _Person_, whom it concerns, deserves our consideration. He is\ndescribed in terms, which excite the most august and magnificent ideas.\nHe is spoken of, indeed, sometimes as being _the seed of the woman_,\nand _as the son of man_; yet so as being at the same time of more than\nmortal extraction. He is even represented to us, as being superior\nto men and angels; as far above all principality and power, above all\nthat is accounted great, whether in heaven or in earth; as the word and\nwisdom of God; as the eternal Son of the Father; as the heir of all\nthings, by whom he made the worlds; as the brightness of his glory, and\nthe express image of his person.\n\nWe have no words to denote greater ideas, than these: the mind of man\ncannot elevate itself to nobler conceptions. Of such transcendent worth\nand excellence is that Jesus said to be, to whom all the prophets bear\nwitness!\n\n3. Lastly, the declared _purpose_, for which the Messiah, prefigured\nby so long a train of prophecy, came into the world, corresponds to\nall the rest of the representation. It was not to deliver an oppressed\nnation from civil tyranny, or to erect a great civil empire, that is,\nto atchieve one of those acts, which history accounts most heroic. No:\nit was not a mighty state, a _victor people_\u2014\n\n    \u201c_Non res Roman\u00e6 perituraque regna_\u2014\u201d\n\nthat was worthy to enter into the contemplation of this divine person.\nIt was another and far sublimer purpose, which HE came to accomplish;\na purpose, in comparison of which, all our policies are poor and\nlittle, and all the performances of man as nothing. It was to deliver\na world from ruin; to abolish sin and death; to purify and immortalize\nhuman nature; and thus, in the most exalted sense of the words, to be\nthe Saviour of all men, and the blessing of all nations.\n\nThere is no exaggeration in this account. I deliver the undoubted\nsense, if not always the very words of scripture.\n\nConsider then to what this representation amounts. Let us unite the\nseveral parts of it, and bring them to a point. A spirit of prophecy\npervading all time\u2014characterizing one person, of the highest\ndignity\u2014and proclaiming the accomplishment of one purpose, the most\nbeneficent, the most divine, that imagination itself can project\u2014Such\nis the scriptural delineation, whether we will receive it or no, of\nthat \u0153conomy, which we call Prophetic!\n\nAnd now then (if we must be reasoning from our ideas of _fit and\nright_, to the rectitude of the divine conduct) let me ask, in one\nword, whether, on the supposition that it should ever please the moral\nGovernor of the world to reveal himself by prophecy at all, we can\nconceive him to do it, in a _manner_, or for _ends_ more worthy of him?\nDoes not the _extent_ of the scheme correspond to our best ideas of\nthat infinite Being, to whom all duration is but a point, and to whose\nview all time is equally present? Is not the _object_ of this scheme,\nthe Lamb of God that was slain from the foundation of the world,\nworthy, in our conceptions, of all the honour that can be reflected\nupon him by so vast and splendid an \u0153conomy? Is not the _end_ of this\nscheme such as we should think most fit for such a scheme of prophecy\nto predict, and for so divine a person to accomplish?\n\nYou see, every thing here is of a piece: all the parts of this\ndispensation are astonishingly great, and perfectly harmonize with each\nother.\n\nWe, who admit the divinity of those records, which represent to us\nthis state of things, cannot but be infinitely affected with it:\nsince, in that case, we only contemplate an undoubted fact, in this\nrepresentation. And it should further seem that even those, who\nquestion that authority of scripture, must, if they be ingenuous,\nconfess themselves _struck_ by a representation at once so sublime and\nconsistent. They require, on all occasions, to have reasons of what\nthey call _fitness_, in the divine conduct, pointed out to them: Can\nthey overlook them here, where they are so obvious and so convincing?\nAt least, the credibility of such a scheme, as that of prophecy is in\nScripture represented to be, appears not, so far as we have hitherto\nconsidered it, to be opposed or lessened in any degree by our _natural_\nprejudices; by the best notions, I mean, which we can frame on this\nsubject; but is, indeed, much _strengthened_ and confirmed by them.\n\nOn the idea of such a scheme, as is here presented to us, I enlarge\nno farther, at present, than just to make ONE general observation. It\nis this: That the argument from prophecy is not to be formed from the\nconsideration of single prophecies, but from all the prophecies taken\ntogether, and considered as making one system; in which, from the\nmutual dependance and connection of its parts, preceding prophecies\nprepare and illustrate those which follow, and these, again, reflect\nlight on the foregoing: just as, in any philosophical system, that\nwhich shews the solidity of it, is the harmony and correspondence of\nthe whole, not the application of it, in particular instances.\n\nHence, though the evidence be but small, from the completion of any one\nprophecy, taken separately, yet, that evidence being always something,\nthe amount of the whole evidence, resulting from a great number of\nprophecies, all relative to the same design, may be considerable;\nlike many scattered rays, which, though each be weak in itself, yet,\nconcentred into one point, shall form a strong light, and strike the\nsense very powerfully. Still more: this evidence is not simply a\ngrowing evidence, but is indeed multiplied upon us, from the number of\nreflected lights, which the several component parts of such a system\nreciprocally throw upon each: till, at length, the conviction rise into\na high degree of moral certainty.\n\nIt hath been said indeed, of this scheme, or way of considering\nprophecy, _that it is an imaginary scheme, of which there is not the\nleast trace in any of the four Gospels; and that it even contradicts\nthe whole evidence of prophecy, as it was understood and applied by\nthe Apostles and evangelists_[23].\n\nBut what, is there no trace of this scheme in the Gospel, when Jesus\nhimself _began at Moses and the prophets, and expounded_ [to his\ndisciples] _in ALL the scriptures the things concerning himself_? Is\nthis scheme contradictory to the evidence of prophecy, as understood by\nthe Apostles, when St. Peter argued with the Jews _from what God had\nspoken by the mouth of ALL his prophets, since the world began_?\n\nIs not here a series of prophecies, expressly referred to, as running\nup not only to the times of Moses[24], but to the beginning of the\nworld? And is not this series argued from, as constituting one entire\nsystem of prophecy, and as affording an evidence distinct from that\nwhich arises from the consideration of each prophecy, taken singly and\nby itself?\n\nBut Jesus and his Apostles, usually, _applied the prophecies singly and\nindependently on each other, as so many different arguments for the\ngeneral truth of the Gospel_[25].\n\nCould they do _otherwise_, when the occasions offered, in the course\nof their ministry, to which those prophecies were to be applied? Or,\ncould they do _better_, in their discourses to the people, to whom\nthe argument from single prophecies would be more familiar, than that\ncomplicated one, arising from a whole system? Does it follow, because\nthe prophecies were applied singly, that therefore they might not with\ngood reason be applied systematically; or that they may not now be so\napplied, when we have to do with those, who are capable of entering\ninto this sort of argumentation? Will it be said that, because the\nmoral precepts of the Gospel are delivered singly, there is therefore\nno such thing as a system of morality, or that the subject may not be\ntreated with propriety, and with advantage too, in that form?\n\nOn the whole, the prophecies of the Old and New Testament, having\nclearly all the _qualities_ of what we call a system, that is,\nconsisting of many particulars, dependent on each other, and\nintimately connected by their reference to a common end, there is no\nreason why they may not be considered in this light; and there is great\nreason why they should be so considered, since otherwise, on many\noccasions, we shall not do justice to the argument itself.\n\nTo return then to the text (which implies the existence and use of\nsuch a system) and to conclude with it. _The spirit of prophecy is the\ntestimony of Jesus._ This angelic information presents, at first sight,\nan idea stupendous indeed, but, on such a subject, suitable enough to\nour expectations. It offers no violence to the natural sense of the\nhuman mind; but, on the contrary, hath every thing in it to engage our\nbelief and veneration.\n\nSuch is the _idea_ of Prophecy, contemplated in itself. What\n_conclusions_ (of importance, as we suppose, to the right apprehension\nand further vindication of prophecy) may be drawn from that idea, will\nbe next considered.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON III.\n\nCONCLUSIONS FROM THE TRUE IDEA OF PROPHECY.\n\nREV. xix. 10.\n\n_The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy._\n\n\nWe have seen how precarious all our reasonings on divine prophecy must\nbe, when built on no better grounds than those of human fancy and\nconjecture. The text supplies us with a principle, as _we_ believe, of\ndivine authority; as _all_ must confess, of scriptural authority; that\nis, of the same authority as that on which prophecy itself stands.\n\nThis principle has been explained at large. It affirms that _Jesus_,\nwhose person and character and history are sufficiently known from the\nbooks of scripture, _is the end and object of the prophetic system_,\ncontained in those books.\n\nWe are now at liberty to reason from this principle. Whatever\nconclusions are fairly drawn from it, must to the believer appear,\nas certain truths; must to the unbeliever appear, as very proper\nillustrations of that principle.\n\nIn general, if difficulties can be removed by pursuing and applying\nscriptural principles, they are fairly removed: and the removal\nof every such difficulty, on these grounds, must be a presumption\nin favour of that system, whether we call it of _Prophecy_, or\n_Revelation_, which is thus found to carry its own vindication with it.\n\nFrom the principle of the text may, I think, be deduced, among others,\nthe following conclusions; all of them tending to clear the subject\nof prophecy, and to obviate some or other of those objections, which\nprejudiced or hasty reasoners have been disposed to make to it.\n\nI. My first conclusion is, \u201cThat, on the idea of such a scheme of\nprophecy, as the text supposes, a considerable degree of obscurity\nmay be reasonably expected to attend the _delivery_ of the divine\npredictions.\u201d\n\nThere are general reasons which shew that prophecy, as such, will\nmost probably be thus delivered. For instance, it has been observed,\nthat, as the completion of prophecy is left, for the most part, to\nthe instrumentality of free agents, if the circumstances of the event\nwere predicted with the utmost precision, either human liberty must be\nrestrained; or human obstinacy _might_ be tempted to form, the absurd\nindeed, but criminal purpose, of counteracting the prediction. On the\ncontrary, by throwing some part of the predicted event into shade, the\nmoral faculties of the agent have their proper play, and the guilt of\nan intended opposition to the will of heaven is avoided. This reason\nseems to have its weight: and many others might still be mentioned.\nBut I argue, at present, from the _particular_ principle, under\nconsideration.\n\nAn immense scheme of prophecy was ultimately designed to bear testimony\nto the person and fortunes of Jesus. But Jesus was not himself to come,\ntill what is called the _last age_ of the world, nor all the purposes\nof his coming to be fully accomplished, till the _end_ of that age.\n\nNow, whatever reasons might make it fit, in the view of infinite\nwisdom, to defer the execution of this scheme to so distant a period,\nmay probably be conceived to make it fit, that the _delivery_ of it\nshould be proportionably dark and obscure. A certain degree of light,\nwe will say, was to be communicated from the date of the prophecy: but\nit is very conceivable that the ages nearer the completion of it, might\nbe more immediately concerned in the event predicted; and that, till\nsuch time approached, it might be convenient to leave the prediction in\na good degree of obscurity.\n\nThe fact answers to this presumption. Prophecies of very remote events,\nremote, I mean, from the date of the prediction, are universally the\nmost obscure. As the season advanced for their accomplishment, they\nare rendered more clear: either fresh prophecies are given, to point\nout the time, and other circumstances, more determinately; or the\ncompletion of some prophecies affords new light for the interpretation\nof others, that are unfulfilled. Yet neither are we to conceive that\nthose _fresh prophecies_, or this _new light_ removes all obscurity:\nenough is still left to prevent or disappoint the efforts of\npresumption; and only so much additional clearness is bestowed on the\nprophecy, as the revealer saw fit to indulge to those who lived nearer\nthe time of its completion.\n\nBut this is not all: By looking into that plan of providence, which\nrespects Jesus, and the ends to be accomplished by him, as it is\ndrawn out in the sacred writings, we find a _distinct_ reason for the\nobscurity of the prophecies, relative to that subject.\n\nWe there find it to have been in the order of the divine councils,\nthat, between the first dawnings of revelation and the fuller light\nof the Gospel, an intermediate and very singular \u0153conomy, yet still\npreparatory to that of Jesus, should be instituted. This \u0153conomy (for\nreasons, which it is not to our present purpose to deduce, and for\nsome, no doubt, which we should in vain attempt to discover) was to\ncontinue for many ages, and _while_ it continued, was to be had in\nhonour among that people, for whom it was more immediately designed.\nBut now the genius of those two dispensations, the Jewish, I mean, and\nthe Christian, being wholly different; the one, carnal, and enforced\nby temporal sanctions only, the other, spiritual, and established on\nbetter promises, the prophets, who lived under the former of these\ndispensations (and the greater part of those, who prophesied of Jesus,\nlived under it) were of course so to predict the future \u0153conomy, as not\nto disgrace the present. They were to respect the _Law_, even while\nthey announced the _Gospel_, which was, in due time, to supersede\nit[26].\n\nSo much, we will say, was to be discovered as might erect the\nthoughts of men towards some better scheme of things, hereafter to be\nintroduced; certainly so much, as might sufficiently evince the divine\nintention in that scheme, when it should actually take place; but not\nenough to indispose them towards that state of discipline, under the\nyoke of which they were then held. From this double purpose, would\nclearly result that character, in the prophecies concerning the new\ndispensation, which we find impressed upon them; and which St. Peter\nwell describes, when he speaks of them, as dispensing a light indeed,\nbut _a light shining in a dark place_.\n\nUpon the whole, the delivery of prophecy seems well suited to that\ndispensation which it was given to attest. If the object in view had\nbeen one single event, to be accomplished all at once, it might perhaps\nbe expected that the prophecies concerning it would have been clear\nand precise. But, if the scheme of Christianity be what the scriptures\nrepresent it to be, a scheme, commencing from the foundation of the\nworld, and unfolding itself by just degrees through a long succession\nof ages, and to be fully accomplished only at the consummation of all\nthings, _prophecy_, which was given to attend on that scheme, and to\nfurnish a suitable attestation to it, must needs be supposed to adapt\nitself to the nature of the dispensation; that is, to have different\ndegrees of clearness or obscurity according to its place in the general\nsystem; and not to disclose more of it, or in clearer terms, at any one\nperiod, than might consist with the various ends of wisdom which were\nto be served by the gradual opening of so vast and intricate a scene.\n\nANOTHER circumstance, of affinity with this, is apt to strike us, in\nthe contemplation of the scriptural prophecies. There is reason to\nbelieve that more than one sense was purposely inclosed in some of\nthem; and we find, in fact, that the writers of the New Testament\ngive to many of the old prophecies an interpretation very different\nand remote from that which may be reasonably thought the primary and\nimmediate view of the prophets themselves. This is what Divines call\nthe DOUBLE SENSE of prophecy: by which they mean an accomplishment of\nit in more events than one; in the same system indeed; but at distant\nintervals, and under different parts of that system.\n\nNow, as suspicious as this circumstance may appear at first sight,\nit will be found, on inquiry, to be exactly suited to that idea of\nprophecy which the text gives us of it, as being, from the first, and\nall along, intended to _bear Testimony to Jesus_. For from that idea I\nconclude again,\n\nII. \u201cThat prophecies of a _double sense_ may well be expected in such a\nscheme.\u201d\n\nAnd where is the wonder that, if prophecy was given to attest the\ncoming of Jesus and the dispensation to be erected by him, it should\noccasionally, in every stage of it, respect its main purpose; and,\nthough the immediate object be some other, it should never lose sight\nof that, in which it was ultimately to find its repose and end?\n\nIt hath been before observed, That, between the earlier notices\nconcerning Jesus, and the advent of that great person, it seemed good\nto infinite wisdom (I speak in terms, suited to the representation of\nscripture) to institute the intermediate \u0153conomy of the Jewish Law.\nAmong other provisions for the administration of this Law, _prophecy_\nwas one; and, upon its own pretensions, a necessary one; for the\ngovernment claims to be strictly _theocratical_; and the people, to\nbe governed by it, were to be made sensible, at every step, that it\nwas so. Therefore the interesting events in their civil history were\nto be regarded by them, as coming within the cognisance, and lying\nunder the controul, of their divine governour: to which end, a race\nof men were successively raised up among them, to give them warning\nof those events, and, by this divine foresight of what was seen to be\naccomplished in their history, to afford a clear conviction, that they\nwere, in fact, under that peculiar government.\n\nAdd to this, that the _Law_ itself, so wonderfully constructed, was\nbut a part, indeed the rudiments, of one great scheme; was given, not\nfor its own sake, but to make way for a still nobler and more generous\ninstitution; was, in truth, a preparatory state of discipline, or\n_p\u00e6dagogy_, as St. Paul terms it, to bring the subjects of it, in due\ntime, to _Christ_[27].\n\nJesus then, the object of the earliest prophecies, was not overlooked\nin this following dispensation; which was, indeed, instinct with\npresages of that divine person. _It gave the shadow of good things to\ncome, but the body was of Christ_[28]. The _legal_ prophets, in like\nmanner, while they were immediately employed, and perhaps believed\nthemselves to be solely employed, in predicting the occurrences of the\nJewish state, were at the same time, preluding, as it were, to the\nperson and dispensation of Jesus; the holy Spirit, which inspired them,\nbearing out their expression, and enlarging their conceptions, beyond\nthe worth and size of those objects, which came directly in their view.\n\nThere is nothing in this account of _prophecy_, but what falls in\nwith our best ideas of the divine wisdom; intently prosecuting one\nentire scheme; and directing the constituent parts of it to the general\npurpose of his providence, at the same time that _each_ serves to\naccomplish its own.\n\nThis _double_, or _secondary sense_ of prophecy was so far from giving\noffence to Lord Bacon, that he speaks of it with admiration, as one\nstriking argument of its Divinity. _In sorting the prophecies of\nscripture with their events_ (a work much desired by this wise author,\nand intended by this Lecture) _we must allow_, says he, _for that\nlatitude which is agreeable and familiar unto divine prophecies, being\nof the nature of the author, with whom a thousand years are but as one\nday; and therefore they are not fulfilled punctually at once, but have\nspringing and germinant accomplishment throughout many ages, though the\nheight or fulness of them may refer to some one age_[29].\n\nBut, that we may not mistake, or pervert, this fine observation of our\ngreat philosopher, it may be proper to take notice, that the reason of\nit holds in such prophecies only as respect the several successive\nparts of one system; which, being intimately connected together,\nmay be supposed to come within the view and contemplation of the\nsame prophecy: whereas it would be endless, and one sees not on what\ngrounds of reason we are authorized, to look out for the accomplishment\nof prophecy in any casual unrelated events of general history. The\nScripture speaks of prophecy, as respecting Jesus, that is, as being\none connected scheme of Providence, of which the Jewish dispensation\nmakes a part: so that here we are led to expect that _springing and\ngerminant accomplishment_, which is mentioned. But had the Jewish\nLaw been complete in itself, and totally unrelated to the Christian,\nthe general principle\u2014_that a thousand years are with God but as\none day_\u2014would no more justify us in extending a Jewish prophecy\nto Christian events, because perhaps it was eminently fulfilled in\nthem, than it would justify us in extending it to any other signally\ncorresponding events whatsoever. It is only when the prophet hath one\nuniform connected design before him, that we are authorised to use this\nlatitude of interpretation. For then the prophetic spirit naturally\nruns along the several parts of _such_ design, and unites the remotest\nevents with the nearest: the style of the prophet, in the mean time,\nso adapting itself to this double prospect, as to paint the near and\nsubordinate event in terms that _emphatically_ represent the distant\nand more considerable.\n\nSo that, with this explanation, nothing can be more just or\nphilosophical, than the idea which Lord Bacon suggests of divine\nprophecy.\n\nThe great scheme of Redemption, we are now considering, being the only\nscheme in the plan of Providence, which, as far as we know, hath been\nprepared and dignified by a continued system of prophecy, at least this\nbeing the only scheme to which we have seen a prophetic system applied,\nmen do not so readily apprehend the doctrine of _double senses_ in\nprophecy, as they would do, if they saw it exemplified in other cases.\nBut what the history of mankind does not supply, we may represent to\nourselves by many obvious suppositions; which cannot justify, indeed,\nsuch a scheme of things, but may facilitate the conception of it.\n\nSuppose, for instance, that it had been the purpose of the Deity (as it\nunquestionably was) to erect the FREE GOVERNMENT of ancient Rome; and\nthat, from the time of \u00c6neas\u2019 landing in Italy, he had given prophetic\nintimations of this purpose. Suppose, further, that he had seen fit,\nfor the better discipline of his favoured people, to place them, for a\nseason, under the _yoke_ of the Regal government; and that, during that\nstate of things, he had instructed his prophets to foretell the wars\nand other occurrences which should distinguish that period of their\nhistory.\u2014Here would be a case somewhat similar to that of the Jews\nunder their theocratic regimen: not exactly indeed, because prophecy,\nas we have seen, was essential to the Jewish polity, but had nothing\nto do with the regal, or any other polity of the Romans. But allow for\nthis difference, and suppose that, for some reason or other, the spirit\nof prophecy was indulged to this people, under their _kings_, as it\nwas to the Jews, under their _theocracy_; and that it was _primarily_\nemployed in the same way, that is, in predicting their various fortunes\nunder that regimen: Suppose, I say, all this, and would it surprize\nus to find that their prophets, in dilating on this part of their\nscheme, should, in a _secondary_ sense, predict the future and more\nsplendid part of it? That, having the whole equally presented to\ntheir view, they should anticipate the coming glories of their _free_\nstate, even in a prophecy which directly concerned their _regal_, and\nmuch humbler successes? That, in commenting on their petty victories\nover the Sabins and Latins, they should drop some hints that pointed\nat their African and Asiatic triumphs; or, in tracing the shadow of\nfreedom they enjoyed under the best of their kings, they should let\nfall some strokes, that more expressly designed the substantial liberty\nof their equal republic: the _end_, as we suppose, and completion of\nthat scheme, for the sake of which the prophetic power itself had been\ncommunicated to them? Still more: supposing we had such prophecies now\nin our hands, and that we found them applicable indeed in a general way\nto the former parts of their history, but frequently more expressive\nof events in the latter, should we doubt of their being prophecies in\na _double sense_, or should we think it strange that two successive\nand dependent dispensations in the same connected scheme should be, at\nonce, the object of the same predictions? And lastly, to put an end to\nthese questions, could there seem to be equal reason for applying these\npredictions to such events as might possibly correspond to them in some\n_other_ history, the Gr\u00e6cian, for instance, as for applying them to\nsimilar events in the _Roman_ history?\n\nLet me just observe further, that, from what hath been said under these\ntwo articles, we may clearly discern the difference between _Pagan\noracles_, and _Scriptural prophecies_. Both have been termed obscure\nand ambiguous; and an invidious parallel hath been made, or insinuated,\nbetween them[30]. The Pagan oracles were indeed _obscure_, sometimes\nto a degree that no reasonable sense could be made of them: they were\nalso _ambiguous_, in the worst sense; I mean, so as to admit contrary\ninterpretations. The scriptural prophecies we own to be _obscure_,\nto a certain degree: And we may call them, too, _ambiguous_; because\nthey contained two, consistent, indeed, but different meanings. But\nhere is the distinction, I would point out to you. The obscurity and\nambiguity of the Pagan oracles had no necessary, or reasonable cause\nin the subject, on which they turned: the obscurity and ambiguity\nof the scriptural prophecies have an evident reason in the system,\nto which they belong. As the Pagan predictions had near and single\nevents for their object, the fate perhaps of some depending war, or\nthe success of some council, then in agitation, they might have been\nclearly and precisely delivered; and in fact we find that such of the\nJewish predictions as foretold events of that sort and character,\nwere so delivered: But, the scriptural prophecies under consideration\nrespecting one immense scheme of Providence, it might be expedient\nthat the remoter parts should be obscurely revealed; as it was surely\nnatural that the connected parts of such a scheme should be shewn\ntogether.\n\nWe see then what force there is in that question, which is asked with\nso much confidence\u2014\u201c_Is it possible, that the same character can\nbe due to the Jewish prophecies, which the wise and virtuous in the\nheathen world considered as an argument of fraud and falshood in the\nPythian prophecies[31]?_\u201d\n\n_First_, we say, the character is _not_ entirely the same in both:\nand, _secondly_, that, so far as it _is_ the same, that character\nis very becoming in the Jewish, but utterly absurd in the Pythian\nprophecies. What was owing to fraud or ignorance in the Pagan Diviner,\nis reasonably ascribed to the depth and height of that wisdom, which\ninformed the Jewish Prophet[32].\n\nTo proceed with our subject. It further appears,\n\nIII. On the grounds of the text, we now stand upon, \u201cto be very\nconceiveable and credible that the line of prophecy should run chiefly\nin one family and people, as we are informed it did, and that the other\nnations of the earth should be no further the _immediate_ objects of\nit, than as they chanced to be connected with that people.\u201d\n\nProphecy, in the ideas of scripture, was not ultimately given for the\nprivate use of this or that nation, nor yet for the nobler and more\ngeneral purpose of proclaiming the superintending providence of the\nDeity (an awful truth, which men might collect for themselves from\nthe established constitution of nature) but _simply_ to evidence the\ntruth of the Christian revelation. It was _therefore_ confined to one\nnation, purposely set apart to preserve and attest the oracles of God;\nand to exhibit, in their public records and whole history, the proofs\nand credentials of an amazing dispensation, which God had decreed to\naccomplish in Christ Jesus[33].\n\nThis conclusion, I say, seems naturally and fairly drawn from the great\nprinciple, that _the spirit of prophecy was the testimony of Jesus_,\nbecause the means appear to be well suited and proportioned to the\n_end_. The _Testimony_ thought fit to be given, was not one or two\nprophecies only, but a _scheme_ of prophecy, gradually prepared and\ncontinued through a large tract of time. But how could such a scheme be\nexecuted, or rather how could it clearly be seen that there was such a\nscheme in view, if some _one_ people had not been made the repository,\nand, in part, the instrument of the divine counsels, in regard to\nJesus; some _one_ people, I say, among whom we might trace the several\nparts of such a scheme, and observe the dependance they had on each\nother; that so the _idea_, of what we call a scheme, might be duly\nimpressed upon us?\n\nFor, had the notices concerning the Redeemer been dispersed\nindifferently among _all_ nations, where had been that uncorrupt and\nunsuspected testimony, that continuity of evidence, that unbroken chain\nof prediction, all tending, by just degrees, to the same point, which\nwe now contemplate with wonder in the Jewish scriptures?\n\nIt is not then that the rest of the world was overlooked[34] in the\nplan of God\u2019s providence, but that he saw fit to employ the ministry of\n_one_ people: This last, I say, and not the other, is the reason why\nthe divine communications concerning Christ were appropriated to the\nJews.\n\nYes, but \u201csome one of the _greater_ nations had better been intrusted\nwith that charge.\u201d This circumstance, I allow, might have struck a\nsuperficial observer more: but could the integrity of the prophetic\nscheme have been more discernible amidst the multiform and infinitely\ninvolved transactions of a mighty people, than in the simpler story of\nthis small Jewish family; or would the hand or work of God, who loves\nto manifest himself by weak instruments, have been more conspicuous in\nthat designation?\n\nOn the whole, I forget not, with what awful diffidence it becomes\nus to reason on such subjects. But the _fact_ being, that _one_, in\npreference to other nations, had the honour of conveying the prophetic\nadmonitions concerning Jesus, it may be allowable to inquire, with\nmodesty, into the reasons of that appointment, and the _end_ of\nprophecy being clearly assigned in sacred scripture, such reasons will\nnot be hastily rejected, as obviously present themselves to an inquirer\nfrom the _consideration_ of that end.\n\nThe benefits of prophecy, though conveyed by one nation, would finally\nredound to all; and the more _effectually_, we have seen, for being\nconveyed by one nation. May we not conclude then (having the _fact_,\nas I said, to reason upon) that, to obtain such purpose, it was fit to\nselect _a peculiar people_? And, if thus much be acknowledged, it will\nhardly be thought a question of much moment, though no answer could be\ngiven to it, why the _Jews_ had that exclusive privilege conferred upon\nthem.\n\nIt is true, a great scheme of prophecy was once revealed to a Gentile\nKing[35]; but a King, connected with the Jews, and who had a Jewish\nprophet for his interpreter. It is, besides, observable of that\nprophetic scheme, that it laid open the future fortunes of four great\nempires; but all of them instruments in the hand of God to carry on\nhis designs, on the Jewish people first, but ultimately, with regard\nto Jesus. For it hath been remarked with equal truth and penetration,\nthat Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s vision of the four kingdoms was designed, as a\nsort of _prophetic chronology_, to point out, by a series of successive\nempires, the beginning and end of Christ\u2019s spiritual Kingdom. So that\nthe reason, why those four empires only were distinguished by the\nspirit of prophecy, was, not because they were greater than all others,\nbut simply because the course of their history led, in a regular and\ndirect succession, to the times and reign of Christ[36].\n\nWe see then, on the principle, _that prophecy was given for the sake\nof Jesus only_, that no presumption lies against the truth of it, on\naccount of its respecting chiefly one people, how inconsiderable soever\nin itself, or from its silence in regard to some of the largest and\nmost flourishing kingdoms that have appeared in the world.\n\nIV. Lastly (for I now hasten to an end of this discourse) I infer from\nthe same principle, \u201cThat, if, even after a mature consideration of the\nprophecies, and of the events, in which they are taken to be fulfilled,\nthere should, after all, be some cloud remaining on this subject, which\nwith all our wit or pains we cannot wholly remove, this state of things\nwould afford no objection to prophecy, because it is indeed no other\nthan we might reasonably expect.\u201d\n\nFor, 1. If Jesus be the end of prophecy, the same reasons that made\nit fit to deliver some predictions darkly, will further account to\nus for some degree of obscurity in the application of them to their\ncorresponding events.\n\nI say\u2014will _account_ to us for such obscurity\u2014for, whatever\nthose _reasons_ were, they could not have taken effect, but by the\nintervention of such _means_, as must darken in some degree, the\napplication of a prophecy, even after the accomplishment of it; unless\nwe say, that an object can be seen as distinctly through a _veil_, as\nwithout one. For instance: _figurative language_ is the chief of those\nmeans, by which it pleased the inspirer to throw a shade on prophecies,\nunfulfilled; but figurative language, from the nature of it, is not\nso precise and clear, as _literal expression_, even when the event\nprefigured has lent its aid to illustrate and explain that language.\n\nIf then it was _fit_ that some prophecies concerning Jesus should be\n_delivered_ obscurely, it cannot be supposed that such prophecies,\nwhen they come to be _applied_, will acquire a full and absolute\nperspicuity[37].\n\n2. If the dispensation of Jesus be the main subject of the prophecies,\nthen may some of them be still impenetrable to us, because the various\nfortunes of that dispensation are not yet perfectly disclosed, and so\nsome of them may not hitherto have been fulfilled. But the completion\nof a prophecy is that which gives the utmost degree of clearness, of\nwhich it is capable.\n\n3. But lastly and chiefly, if the end and use of prophecy be to attest\nthe truth of Christianity, then may we be sure that such attestation\nwill not carry with it the utmost degree of evidence. For Christianity\nis plainly a state of discipline and probation: calculated to improve\nour moral nature, by giving scope and exercise to our moral faculties.\nSo that, though the evidence for it be _real_ evidence, and on the\nwhole _sufficient_ evidence, yet neither can we expect it to be of that\nsort which should compel our assent. Something must be left to quicken\nour attention, to excite our industry, and to try the natural ingenuity\nof the human mind.\n\nHad the purpose of prophecy been to shew, merely, that a predicted\nevent was foreseen, then the end had been best answered by throwing all\npossible evidence into the completion. But its concern being to shew\nthis to such only as should be disposed to admit a reasonable degree of\nevidence, it was not necessary, or rather it was plainly not fit, that\nthe completion should be seen in that strong and irresistible light[38].\n\nFor all the reasons, now given, (and doubtless, for many more) it was\nto be expected, that prophecy would not be one cloudless emanation of\nlight and glory. If it be clear enough to serve the ends, for which it\nwas designed; if through all its obscurities, we be able to trace the\nhand and intention of its divine author; what more would we have? How\nimprovidently, indeed, do we ask more of that great Being, who, for the\nsake of the _natural_ world, _clothes the heavens with blackness_ [Is.\n1. 3.]; and in equal mercy to the _moral_ world, veils his nature and\nprovidence _in thick clouds, and makes darkness his pavilion_ [Ps.\nxviii. 11]?\n\nTO THESE deductions from the text, more might be added. For I believe\nit will be found that if the _end_ of prophecy, as here delivered, be\nsteddily kept in view and diligently pursued, it will go a great way\ntowards leading us to a prosperous issue in most of those inquiries,\nwhich are thought to perplex this subject. But I mean to reason from\nit no farther than just to shew, in the way of specimen, the method\nin which it becomes us to speculate on the prophetic system. We are\nnot to imagine principles, at pleasure, and then apply them to that\nsystem. But we are, first, to find out what the principles are, on\nwhich prophecy is founded, and by which it claims to be tried; and then\nto see whether they will _hold_, that is, whether they will aptly and\nproperly apply to the particulars, of which it is compounded. If they\nwill, the system itself is thus far clearly justified. All that remains\nis to compare the prophecies with their corresponding events, in order\nto assure ourselves that there is real evidence of their completion.\n\nThe _use_ of this method has been shewn in FOUR capital instances.\nIt is objected to the scriptural prophecies, _that they are\nobscure_\u2014_that they abound in double senses_\u2014_that they were\ndelivered to one people_\u2014_that, after all, there is sometimes\ndifficulty in making out the completion_\u2014all of them, it is said, very\nsuspicious circumstances; and which rather indicate a scheme of human\ncontrivance, than of divine inspiration.\n\nTo these objections it is replied, that, from the very idea which the\nscriptures themselves give of prophecy, these circumstances must needs\nbe found in it; and further still, that these circumstances, when\nfairly considered, do honour to that idea: for that the obscurity,\ncomplained of, results, _from the immensity of the scheme_\u2014the double\nsenses, _from the intimate connection of its parts_\u2014the partial\nand confined delivery, _from the wisdom and necessity of selecting\na peculiar people to be the vehicle and repository of the sacred_\noracles\u2014And lastly, the incomplete evidence, _from the nature of the\nsubject, and from the moral genius of that dispensation, to which the\nscheme of prophecy itself belongs_.\n\nIn conclusion, it is now seen to what purpose these preliminary\ndiscourses serve, and in what method they have been conducted.\n\nThe FIRST, shewed the vanity and folly of reasoning on the subject\nof scriptural prophecy from our preconceived fancies and arbitrary\nassumptions. The SECOND, shewed the only true way of reasoning upon it\nto be from scriptural principles, and then opened and explained _one_\nsuch principle. In this LAST, I have shewn that, by prosecuting this\nway of reasoning from the principle assigned, some of the more specious\nobjections to the scriptural prophecies are easily obviated.\n\nTaken together, these three discourses serve to illustrate the\n_general_ idea of prophecy, considered as one great scheme of\n_testimony_ to the religion of Jesus; and consequently open a way for\nthe fair and equitable consideration of _particular_ prophecies, the\nmore immediate subject of this Lecture.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON IV.\n\nTHE GENERAL ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY.\n\nJOHN xiii. 19.\n\n_Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come to pass, ye may\nbelieve, that I am He._\n\n\nIt hath been concluded (not on the slight grounds of hypothesis, but on\nthe express authority of scripture,) that prophecy was given TO ATTEST\nTHE MISSION OF JESUS: to afford a reasonable evidence, that the scheme\nof redemption, of which he was the great instrument and minister, was,\nin truth, of divine appointment; and was carried on under the immediate\ncognizance and direction of the Supreme Being, whose prerogative it is\nto see through all time, and to _call those things, which be not, as\nthough they were_[39].\n\nOur next inquiry will be, how the prophetic scriptures _serve_ to\nthat end, and what that _evidence_ is (I mean, taking for granted,\nnot the truth of the prophetic scheme itself, but the truth of the\n_representation_, given of it in scripture) which is thus administered\nto us by the light of prophecy.\n\nI. The text refers to a particular prophecy of our Lord, concerning the\ntreachery of Judas; of which, says he to his disciples, _I now tell\nyou before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that\nI am He_: that is, \u201cI add this, to the other predictions concerning\nmyself; that, when ye see it fulfilled, as it soon will be, ye may be\nthe more convinced of my being the person, I assume to be, the _Messias\nforetold_.\u201d\n\nThe information, here given, was perhaps intended by our Lord to\nserve a particular purpose, To prevent, we will say, the offence,\nwhich the disciples might have taken at the circumstance of his being\nbetrayed by one of them, if they had not, previously, been admonished\nof it. But the reason of the thing shews, that the _use_, which the\ndisciples are directed to make of this prophecy, was the _general_ use\nof the prophecies concerning Jesus. The completion was to verify the\nprediction, in all cases; and to convince the world, That HE was the\nMessiah, in whom such things should be seen to be accomplished, as had\nbeen expressly foretold[40].\n\nIndeed prophecies, unaccomplished, may have their use; that is, they\nmay serve to raise a general expectation of a predicted _event_ in\nthe minds of those, who, for other reasons, regard the _person_\npredicting it, in the light of a true prophet. And such might be one,\na _subordinate_, use of the prophecies concerning Jesus: but they\ncould not be applied to the _proof_ of his pretensions, till they were\nseen to be fulfilled. Nor can they be so applied even then, unless the\nthings predicted be, confessedly, beyond the reach of human foresight.\n\nUnder these conditions, the argument is clear and easy, and will lie\nthus.\u2014\u201cA great variety of distant, or, at least, future events,\ninscrutable to human sagacity, and respecting one person (whom we will\ncall, Messiah) have been by different men, and at different times,\npredicted. These events have accordingly come to pass, in the history\nand fortunes of one person; in such sort, that each is seen to be, in\na proper sense, fulfilled in him, and all together in no other person\nwhatsoever: Therefore the prediction of these events was divinely\ninspired: or (which comes to the same thing) therefore the person,\nclaiming under these predictions to be the Messiah, or person foretold,\nhath his claims confirmed and justified by the highest authority, that\nof God himself.\u201d\n\nSuch is the argument from prophecy[41]: and on this foundation, Jesus\nassumes to be the MESSIAH; and his religion, to be DIVINE.\n\nII. Let us now see, what the amount of that _evidence_ is, which\nresults from this kind of proof.\n\nCareless talkers may say, and sometimes think, \u201cthat prophecy is but\nan art of conjecturing shrewdly; that the sagacity of one man is seen\nto be vastly superior to that of another; that, in some men, the\nnatural faculty may be so improved by experience, as to look like\n_divination_; and that no precise bounds can be set to its powers.\u201d\nLight or sceptical minds may, I say, amuse themselves with such\nfancies: but serious men will readily acknowledge, That many future\nevents, especially, if _remote_, or _extraordinary_[42], or described\nwith some degree of _particularity_, are not within the ability of the\nhuman mind to predict. And, to cut off all occasion of cavil, let it be\nowned, that the argument under consideration is, or ought to be, drawn\nfrom the completion of prophecies, so qualified.\n\nTo evade the force, which this argument apparently carries with it,\nit must then be said, That the completion of any particular prophecy,\nalleged, was fortuitous, or, what we call, a _lucky hit_.\n\n\u201cCoincidencies of this sort, we may be told, are very frequent. In\nthe ceaseless revolution of human affairs, some event or other will\nbe turning up, which may give a countenance to the wildest and\nmost hazardous conjecture. Hence it is, that every groundless fear,\nevery dream, almost, has the appearance of being realized by some\ncorresponding accident; which will not be long in occurring to those,\nwho are upon the watch to make such discoveries. Upon these grounds,\nthe superstition of _omens_ hath, at all times, been able to sustain\nitself; and to acquire a degree of credit, even with wise men. We\nsee, then, that _chance_, in a good degree, supplies the place of\ninspiration: and that He, who sets up for a Prophet, is likely to\ndrive a safe, as well as gainful trade; especially, if he have but the\ndiscretion not to deal too freely in precise descriptions of _times_,\nand _persons_[43]: a consideration, of great moment to the men of this\ncraft[44]; and which hath not been overlooked by those, whom we account\n_true_ prophets.\u201d\n\nSuch libertine reflections, as these, thrown out with an air of\nnegligent ridicule, have too often the effect intended by them. At\nthe same time, they disgust sober men, and are thought too light\nand trivial to deserve a confutation. But, because I take these\nsuggestions, with whatever levity, or disingenuity, they may be made,\nto contain the whole, or at least, the chief strength of the infidel\ncause, on this subject, I shall not decline to give them a very serious\nanswer.\n\nIT IS TRUE, no doubt, what is here alledged, That the conjectures\nof fanciful or designing men, whether grounded on casual signs, or\ndelivered in the direct way of prophecy, have been frequently verified\nin the events: that is, such events have actually come to pass, in the\nsense put upon the _sign_, when it was observed, and in the literal\nsense of the _prophecy_, as delivered. History and common life, it is\nagreed, abound in such instances[45]: and I shall even make no scruple\nto produce _one_ of each sort; as much, at least, to the purpose\nof these objectors, as any of those, which they have produced for\nthemselves.\n\nNothing is more famous in the annals of ancient Rome, than the story\nof Romulus, and his TWELVE VULTURES; an _omen_ this, on which the\nauspicious name of the rising city, and the fortune of its founder,\nwere, at once, established[46]. What further construction was\nthen put on this prodigy, doth not appear: but, as the science of\naugury advanced in succeeding times, a very momentous and striking\nprophecy was grounded upon it. For we have it affirmed[47], on the\nhigh authority of M. T. VARRO, that Vettius Valens, an augur of\ndistinguished name in those days, took occasion from this circumstance\n(and in the hearing of Varro himself) to fix the duration of the Roman\nempire. The TWELVE VULTURES, he said, which appeared to Romulus,\n_portended_, that the sovereignty of that state and city, whose\nfoundations he was then laying, should continue for the space of TWELVE\nHUNDRED YEARS. It is of no moment to inquire, on what principles of his\nart the learned augur proceeded, in this calculation. The TRUTH is,\nthat the event corresponded, in a surprising manner, to the conjecture;\nand that the _majesty_ of the Western empire (of which Rome was the\ncapital) _did_, indeed, expire under the merciless hands of the Goths,\nabout the time limited by this augural prophet.\n\nIt should further, be observed that this prediction was of such\ncredit and notoriety, as to take the attention of the later Romans\nthemselves[48], who looked with anxiety for the accomplishment of it:\nand that it was delivered by Valens, at least _five hundred years_\nbefore the event; when there was not the least appearance, that this\ncatastrophe would befall, what was called, the ETERNAL CITY, within\nthat period.\n\nTHIS is an instance of divination from _augury_. The OTHER, I am\nabout to give, is a _prophecy_, in full form; respecting a still more\nimportant subject, and equally accomplished in the event. A poet, in\nthe ideas of paganism, was a prophet, too. And Seneca[49] hath left us,\nin proof of the inspiration to which, in his double capacity, he might\npretend, the following oracle:\n\n              \u2014\u2014venient annis\n    Secula seris, quibus Oceanus\n    Vincula rerum laxet, et ingens\n    Pateat tellus, Tiphysque novos\n    Detegat orbes; nec sit terris\n    Ultima Thule.\n\nThis prediction was made in the reign of Nero; and, for more than\n_fourteen hundred_ years, might only pass for one of those sallies of\nimagination, in which poetry so much delights. But, when, at length,\nin the close of the _fifteenth_ century, the discoveries of Columbus\nhad realized this vision: when that enterprizing navigator had forced\nthe barriers of the vast Atlantic ocean; had _loosened_, what the poet\ncalls, _the chain of things_; and in these _later ages_[50], as was\nexpressly signified, had set at liberty an immense continent, shut up\nbefore in surrounding seas from the commerce and acquaintance of our\nworld; when this event, I say, so important and so unexpected, came to\npass, it might almost surprize one into the belief, that the prediction\nwas something more than a poetical fancy; and that Heaven had, indeed,\nrevealed to _one_ favoured Spaniard, what it had decreed, in due time,\nto accomplish under the auspices of _another_[51].\n\nTHESE two instances of casual conjecture, converted by time and\naccident into prophecies, I shall take for granted, are as remarkable,\nas any other that can be alledged. Cicero, in his first book of\n_Divination_, where he laboured to assert the reality of such a power\nin the pagan world, was able to produce nothing equal, or comparable\nto them. We have the fullest evidence, that these two predictions\nwere delivered by the persons, to whom they are ascribed; and in the\ntime, in which they are said to have been delivered, that is, many\nhundred years before the event. They, both of them, respect events\nof the greatest dignity and importance: one of them, the downfal of\nthe _mightiest empire_, that hath hitherto subsisted on the face\nof the earth; and the other, the discovery of a _new world_. Both,\nexpress the _time_, when these extraordinary events were to happen:\nthe _latter_, by a general description, indeed, yet not more general,\nthan is frequent in the scriptural prophets; but the _former_, in the\nmost precise and limited terms. In a word, both these predictions are\nauthentic, important, circumstantial: they foretell events, which no\nhuman sagacity could have foreseen; and they have been strictly and\nproperly fulfilled.\n\nNow, if such coincidencies, as these, do not infer divine inspiration;\nif, notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary, it must still be\nallowed (as it will, on all sides) that they were simply _fortuitous_,\nor what we call the effects of hazard and pure chance, by what\ncharacters shall we distinguish genuine, from pretended, prophecies; or\nin what way shall it be discovered, that the scriptural prophets spake\nby the spirit of _God_, when these pagan diviners could thus prophecy,\nby their _own_ spirit?\n\nTo this objection, put with all the force which I am able to give to\nit, I reply directly, That the distinction, so importunately demanded,\nmay very easily and clearly be assigned.\n\nIf _one or two_ such prophecies, _only_, had occurred in our\nscriptures; if even _several_ such had occurred in the whole extent\nof those writings, and in the large compass of time they take up,\nwithout descending to a greater detail than is expressed in these pagan\noracles; nay, if _a greater number still_ of supposed predictions, thus\ngenerally delivered in the sacred writings, had been applicable only to\nsingle independent events, dispersed indifferently through the several\nages of the world: In all these cases, I should freely admit, that the\nargument from prophecy was very precarious and unsatisfactory: I could\neven suppose, with the deriders of this argument, that so many, and\nsuch prophecies, so directed, might not improbably be accounted for,\nfrom some odd conjuncture of circumstances; and that the accomplishment\nof them did by no means infer a certainty of inspiration.\n\nBut, if now, on the other hand, it be indisputable, That a vast variety\nof predictions are to be found in the scriptures of the Old and New\nTestament; That a great part of these predictions are delivered with\nthe utmost degree of minuteness and particularity; and, lastly, That\n_all_ of them, whether general or particular, respect one common\nsubject, and profess to have, or to expect, their completion in one\nconnected scheme of things, and, upon the matter, in one single person:\nOn this latter supposition, I must still think, that there is great\nreason to admit the divine inspiration of such prophecies, when seen to\nbe fulfilled.\n\nTo convert this supposition into a _proof_, is not within the scope\nand purpose of this Lecture. The work hath been undertaken and\ndischarged by many others: or, it may be sufficient, in so clear a\npoint, to refer you directly to the Scriptures themselves; which no\nman can read without seeing, that the prophecies, contained in them,\nare extremely numerous\u2014that many of these prophecies are minutely\ncircumstantial\u2014and that one person, whoever he be, is the principal\nobject of them all. My concern, at present, is only to shew, that,\nif the supposition itself be well founded, the _inference_, just now\nmentioned, is rightly made.\n\n1. First, then, if the prophecies in the Old and New Testament be very\nnumerous, and if those prophecies, so many of them, I mean, as are\nalledged in this controversy with unbelievers, have had a reasonable\ncompletion (and I have a right to make this last supposition, when\nthe question is concerning the _account_ to be given of such a fact):\nIf, I say, we argue from these two assumptions, it must appear highly\ncredible and probable, that so numerous prophecies, so fulfilled,\nhad not their origin from human conjecture, nor their accomplishment\nfrom what we call, _Chance_. For mere conjecture is not usually so\nhappy; nor chance, so constant[52]. Further still; if the scriptural\nprophecies have been completed in numerous instances, and if in _no_\ninstance whatsoever can it be clearly shewn that they have failed in\nthe event, the presumption is still stronger, that such coincidence\ncould not be fortuitous; and a material difference between scriptural\nprophecy, and pagan divination is, at the same time, pointed out. For,\nthat, in the multitude of pretended oracles in the days of paganism,\nsome few only should come to pass, while the generality of them fell to\nthe ground, may well be the sport of _fortune_[53]. But, that very many\nprophecies, recorded in our scriptures, have had an evident completion,\nwhen not _one_ of all those, there recorded, can be convicted of\nimposture, must surely be the work of _design_.\n\nThe argument cannot be denied to have real weight, though the\nexpression of _all_ the prophecies were allowed to be _general_. But\nthis is, by no means, the case. It is further assumed, and is evident\nto all that have read the Scriptures, that a great number of them are\ndelivered with the utmost degree of minuteness and particularity. And,\nfrom this assumption, I infer,\n\n2. Secondly, that the accomplishment of prophecies, so circumstantially\ndefined, can still less be imputed to mere chance.\n\nWithout doubt, if all the prophecies concerning the Messiah had been\npenned in the style of the first\u2014_that the seed of the woman should\nbruise the serpent\u2019s head_\u2014though even then there might be reason\nfor applying them, exclusively, to the person of Christ, yet, the\nevidence, that they were intended to be so applied, would have been\nmuch obscured by the mode of expression; the wide cover of which might\nseem to afford room for other applications. But when, to this general\nprophecy, the theme of all succeeding ones, it is further added, That\nthis seed of the woman, should be the seed of Abraham; of the tribe of\nJuda; of the family of David; that he should be born at Bethlehem; that\nhe should appear in the world at a time, limited by certain events,\nand even precisely determined to a certain period:\u2014when, after a\nparticular description of his life and office, it is said of him, that\nhe should be betrayed by an intimate friend; and sold for a price,\nexactly specified; that he should suffer a particular kind of death;\nshould have his hands and feet pierced; should have vinegar given him\nto drink; and should be buried in the sepulchre of a rich man\u2014with\ninnumerable other particularities of the like nature[54]\u2014When all\nthis, I say, is considered; the improbability, that these _specific_\ncharacters should meet in the same person by _chance_, is so great,\nthat a reasonable man will scarce venture on so hazardous a position.\n\n3. Still this is not all. Were we at liberty to apply even _numerous,\nand circumstantial_ prophecies, to _any_ person, indifferently, whom\nthey might suit, and to _any_ events indiscriminately, to which they\nmight correspond, sought out at large in the history of mankind, the\nforce of the argument for _design_ in such prophecies, might in good\nmeasure be eluded. But, when we reflect on what, in part, hath appeared\nunder the last article, that all the scriptural predictions profess to\nrespect one certain scheme of things; run in the line of one people;\nand point ultimately at one person, whose country, and family, and age,\nand birth-place are exactly defined; the application of them is so\nlimited and restrained, that, if they suit at all, there is scarce a\npossibility of excluding actual foresight, and intention.\n\nLET ME, further, observe, that, as, upon this idea of a confined,\nconnected, and dependent scheme, in the prophecies, the detection of\nimposture, if there be any, is much facilitated; so, on the other hand,\nif the prophecies can be fairly applied in this way, not only the\npresumption, that they were given to be so applied, is much increased,\nbut a clearer insight into the scope and meaning of them, is obtained.\nFor, in a system of prophecy, directed to one and the same general\nend, preceding prophecies prepare the way for interpreting those that\nfollow, and every succeeding prophecy reflects some light on those that\nwent before. Thus, the general evidence, arising from this species of\nargument, is, in all ways, augmented; while we see, that less room is\nleft to chance in verifying the more clear and direct prophecies, and\nthat fresh light is let in upon such as are more ambiguous or obscure.\n\nIt is said, that many passages in the prophets are applied to Jesus, on\nvery slight grounds. This would be true, if the prophetic scriptures,\nlike the pagan oracles, had no determinate scheme in view, and had,\nfor their object, only detached and unconnected events. But, on this\nscriptural principle, that one common purpose is in the contemplation\nof that divine spirit, which dictated all those writings, That is\n_expressed_, which is barely intimated; and every applicable prophecy\nis _rightly_ applied: whence it is, that even secondary prophecies\nhave, in the system of revelation, all the light and force of the\nprimary; as, in a former discourse, hath been observed.\n\nThis assertion, I know, may startle such persons, as have not attended\nto the genius of the prophetic writings, or to that general harmony of\ndesign and destination, which makes their distinctive character: but it\nmay be rendered familiar to us by reflecting on the _manner_, in which\nwe interpret other writings, somewhat similar to these.\n\nIt is generally supposed, and on good grounds, that Virgil wrote his\n\u00c6neid with the view of doing honour to the person and government of\nAugustus. But, the subject of his work being taken from a former age,\nthis was either to be done, by introducing his encomiums under the\nform of _prophecies_, or by conveying them indirectly in allusive\ndescriptions and, what we call, _secondary_ applications. The poet\nhath employed both these methods, with success. The purpose of his\n_predictions_ is clear; for in them the emperor is expressly named: and\nthe ablest critics make no scruple of applying to Augustus all those\npassages in this poem, which, however they may respect, immediately,\nother persons, are yet clearly seen to be _applicable_ to Him.\n\nWe have another instance of the same sort, at home. Our Spenser\nwrote his famous poem, to illustrate the virtues and reign of Queen\nElizabeth. This we know from himself. Though his scene, therefore,\nbe laid in _Faery Land_, yet, whenever we find his fictions agreeing\nto the history of that princess, or the characters of his knights\nexpressive of those virtues, which distinguished the great persons of\nher court, we make no doubt of applying them in that way, or of the\npoet\u2019s intending that they should be so applied. These applications\nwould not be equally justifiable in _other_ works of fancy, written in\nthat time; but the knowledge, we have of the author\u2019s general purpose\nin writing, makes them reasonable in _this_.\n\nIt may appear from these examples[55], that, whenever a general\nscheme is known to be pursued by a writer, whose real or assumed\ncharacter gives him a right to deal in secondary senses and prophetic\nanticipations, that scheme becomes the true key, in the hands of his\nreader, for unlocking the meaning of particular parts; of many parts,\nwhich would otherwise not be seen clearly and distinctly to refer to\nsuch scheme. The observation applies to the inspired writers, in all\nits force. We understand, that they had one common and predominant\nscheme in view, which was _to bear testimony to Jesus_. Their writings\nare, then, to be interpreted in conformity to that scheme. Not only the\nmore direct prophecies require this interpretation; but, if we will\njudge in this, as we do in other similar instances, whatever passages\noccur in those writings, which bear an apt and easy resemblance to\nthe history of Jesus, may, or rather _must_, in all reasonable\nconstruction, be applied to him.\n\nWhence we see (to mention it by the way) that, if no prophecy in the\nOld Testament had applied to Christ directly in its _primary_ sense,\nChristianity might, yet, support itself on the evidence of prophecy.\nFor the evidence, arising from a _secondary_ sense of prophecies, is\n_real_ evidence; and was certainly admitted, as such, by that great\nman[56], whose mistakes on this subject have afforded the occasion of\nso much vain triumph to infidelity.\n\nFancy, no doubt, may grow wanton in this sort of applications. It may\nfind, in the prophet or poet, what was never designed by either: but,\nin the circumstances supposed, the severest reader will not deny, that\n_much_ was probably designed by both. It is impossible to lay down\ngeneral rules, that shall prevent all abuse in the interpretation of\nsuch writings. But good sense will easily see, in particular cases,\nwhere this liberty of interpreting is, in _fact_, abused.\n\nIt is obvious to remark, that this use of prophecy doth not commence,\ntill the corresponding facts can be produced; that is, till the\nprophecies are seen to be fulfilled. But this circumstance is no\ndiscredit to the prophetic system; which pretends not to give immediate\nconviction, but to lay in, beforehand, the _means_ of conviction\nto such as shall be in a condition to compare, in due time, the\nprediction with the event. Till then, prophecy serves only to raise\na general expectation of the event predicted; that is, it serves to\nmake men attentive and inquisitive, and to prepare them for that full\nconviction, which it finally hath in view. And this service, the\nprophecies of the Old Testament actually did the Jews, who were led by\nthem to expect the Messiah, when he, in fact, appeared among them. And,\nhad they pursued this reasonable method of interpreting the prophecies,\nnot by their prejudices, but by corresponding events, they must have\nbeen further led to acknowledge his mission, as being evidently\nattested by predictions, so fulfilled. But their capital mistake lay in\nsupposing, that their prophecies were sufficiently clear, without the\nhelp of any comment from succeeding events; and thus, what they _could\nnot_ see beforehand, they _would not_ acknowledge, when these events\ncame to pass.\n\nIt follows from what hath been said, that the obscurity of the Jewish\nprophecies concludes nothing against the _use_ of those writings, or\nagainst the _application_ of them, which Christians now make. Their\n_declared_ use is posterior to the facts they adumbrate; whence the\nintervening obscurity of those writings is no just ground of complaint:\nand the _application_ of them to Jesus, now that history hath taught us\nto understand them better, is made on principles to which no sober man\ncan object.\n\nOn the whole, the general evidence for the truth of Christianity, as\nresulting from the scriptural prophecies, though possibly not _that_\nwhich some may wish or expect, is yet apparently very considerable.\n_Some_ coincidencies might fall out, by accident; and _more_, might\nbe imagined. But when _so many_, and _such_ prophecies are brought\ntogether, and compared with their corresponding events, it becomes\nridiculous (because the effect is, in no degree, proportioned to the\ncause) to say of such coincidencies, that they are the creatures of\n_fancy_ or could have been the work of _chance_.\n\nThe text supplies the only just account of such a ph\u00e6nomenon: and the\nspirit of God, methinks, calls aloud to us, in the language of his\nSon\u2014_These things have I told you before they come, that when they\ncome to pass, ye may believe, that I am HE._\n\n\n\n\nSERMON V.\n\nPROPHECIES CONCERNING CHRIST\u2019S FIRST COMING.\n\nISAIAH xlii. 9.\n\n_Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I\ndeclare: before they spring forth, I tell you of them._\n\n\nThe preceding discourses were designed, to open the _general idea_ of\nprophecy; and to enforce the _general argument_ from it, in proof of\nour holy Religion.\n\nThe way being thus far cleared, we now advance a step farther, and take\na nearer view of THE PROPHECIES THEMSELVES.\n\nThese prophecies may be considered under _two_ heads. They either\nrespect, _the person and character and office of the Messiah_; or, _the\nfate and fortunes of that kingdom_, which he came to establish in the\nworld.\n\nDivines call the _former_ of these, Prophecies of his FIRST COMING:\nand the _other_, Prophecies of his SECOND. Only, it may be proper to\nobserve, That the _second_ advent of the Messiah is not, like the\n_first_, confined to one single and precise period, but is gradual and\nsuccessive. This distinction is founded in the reason of the thing. He\ncould only come, _in person_, at one limited time. He comes, _in his\npower and his providence_, through all ages of the church. His _first_\ncoming was then over, when he expired on the cross. His _second_,\ncommenced with his resurrection, and will continue to the end of the\nworld. So that this _last_ coming of Jesus is to be understood of his\n_spiritual kingdom_; which is not one act of sovereignty, exerted at\nonce; but a state or constitution of government, subsisting through a\nlong tract of time, unfolding itself by just degrees, and _coming_,\nas oft, as the conductor of it thinks fit to interpose by any signal\nacts of his administration. And in this sense, we are directed to pray,\n_that his kingdom_, though long since set up, _may come_; that is, may\nadvance through all its stages, till it arrive at that full state of\nglory, in which it shall shine out in _the great day_, as it is called,\nthe day of judgment.\n\nIt will be seen, as we advance in the present inquiry, to what use this\ndistinction serves.\n\nThe _former_ set of prophecies are presumed to have had their\ncompletion, in the history of _Jesus_; The _latter_ set, have had, or\nare to find, their accomplishment, in the history of his _Religion_;\nAnd of THESE only, it is the purpose of this Lecture to speak.\n\nBut, though the prophecies of Christ\u2019s _first_ coming (so largely and\naccurately considered by many great writers) be not the immediate\nsubject of our inquiry, yet they must not be wholly overlooked by us.\nIt will contribute very much to rectify and enlarge our ideas of the\ndivine conduct, in this whole dispensation of prophecy, and to make way\nfor that conviction, which the prophecies of Christ\u2019s _second_ coming\nwere intended to give, if we stop a while to contemplate the _method\nand \u0153conomy_ of that prophetic system, by which the _first_ advent of\nthe Messiah was announced and prepared.\n\nIt is assumed, as a first principle on this subject, _That Jesus was\nthe ultimate end and object of all the prophecies_[57]: which beginning\nfrom the foundation of the world[58], were, afterwards, occasionally\ndelivered through many ages; till at length this great purpose was\nprosecuted more intently, by a continued and closely-compacted chain of\nprophecy; as we see, first, in the patriarchal history, but, chiefly,\nin the history of the Jewish state. For, when this people were selected\nfrom the other nations, to answer many wise ends of providence, it\npleased God to institute a form of government for them, which could not\nsubsist without his frequent interposition; manifested in such a way\nas might convince them, that they were under the actual and immediate\nconduct of their divine sovereign. Hence, it became a part of this\nsingular \u0153conomy, to be administered in the way of _Prophecy_; by which\nit would be seen that the hand of God was upon them in all their more\nimportant concerns.\n\nUpon this basis of an _extraordinary providence_, the Jewish government\nstood: and we are now to see in what _manner_ the prophetic spirit, so\nessential to that polity, was employed.\n\n1. First, we may observe, that, by means of this provision for their\ncivil regimen, an apt and commodious way was opened for carrying on\nthe divine councils, in regard to _Jesus_; in whom, indeed, the Law\nitself was to be fulfilled. For, while the civil affairs of the Jewish\npeople furnished the occasion and substance of their prophecies, the\ndivine wisdom, that inspired the prophets, so contrived, as that their\nreligious concerns should, also, be expressed, or implied in them.\nThe general theme of the _prophet_, was some, temporal success or\ncalamity of the Jewish state: the secret purpose of the _inspirer_ was,\noccasionally at least, and when he saw fit, to predict the spiritual\nkingdom of the Messiah[59].\n\nWe have innumerable instances of this sort in the Jewish prophets;\nbut few, more remarkable than that of Isaiah\u2019s prophecy, addressed to\nAhaz, king of Judah, concerning his deliverance from the two kings\nof Samaria and Damascus. In the _primary_, but lower sense of this\nprophecy, the sign given was to assure Ahaz, that the land of Jud\u00e6a\nshould _speedily_ be delivered from its two Royal invaders. But it had\nlikewise _another_, and more important purpose. The introduction of the\nprophecy, the singular stress laid upon it, and the exact sense of the\nterms in which it is expressed, make it probable, in a high degree,\nthat it had some such purpose: and the event hath clearly proved, that\nthe _sign given_ had a respect to the miraculous birth of Christ, and\nto a deliverance much more momentous than that of Ahaz from his present\ndistressful situation\u2014_Hear ye now_, O HOUSE OF DAVID\u2014_The Lord\nhimself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and\nbear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel_. _Isaiah_, vii. 13, 14.\nAdmit that these words are capable of being explained, in some sort,\nof the _child_ now given to be a sign, to the King of Jud\u00e6a, of his\ndeliverance within two or three years, as expressed in the following\nverses; still, who sees not that terms so emphatical and energetic\nare more _properly_ understood of _another_ child, to whose birth and\ncharacter they are found, in the event, to be exactly suited? And, if\nmore properly, who can doubt that these terms are _naturally_, that is,\nreasonably understood of that other child, when we consider with what\nideas the mind of the prophet was stored, and what the ultimate end and\nobject was, by supposition, of the prophet\u2019s inspiration? The child\npromised was a _sign_ to Ahaz of his deliverance; yet a sign too, that\nis, a _type_, to the house of David, of another deliverance, which they\nexpected, which their prophets had frequently foretold, and which we\nhave here announced in the _name_ of this miraculous child, IMMANUEL,\nor eminently, _The Deliverer_.\n\nThere is nothing in this _sign_[60], thus interpreted, but what is easy\nand unforced; I mean, if we bear in mind the genius and character of\nthe Jewish prophecies. The former event, signified in the prophecy,\nwas merely _civil_: the latter, concerned the _spiritual_ kingdom of\nChrist. They were both predicted together: and the preceding event,\nwhen it came to pass, was, further, to induce an _expectation_, that\nthe other event would, in due time, follow. For\n\n2. Secondly, it appears, that, to excite attention to these SPIRITUAL\npredictions, more obscure than the other, and regarding events more\nremote, care was taken to secure the authority of the prophet, by the\ncompletion of his _civil_ predictions in events, distinctly described,\nand near at hand. Thus, Moses might be believed by the Jews in what\nhe said, _of a prophet to be raised up_, in a future age, _like to\nhimself_; when they saw his prophetic blessings and curses upon them,\naccording to their deserts in the land of Canaan, so speedily and so\npunctually executed. Thus, too, their prophet, Isaiah, might reasonably\nexpect to find credit with them, for the glorious things predicted\nby him of the great deliverer, the Messiah; when their deliverance\nfrom the Babylonish captivity was seen so certainly to verify his\nprediction of that event. The prophet himself exults in this argument,\nas decisive and unanswerable. _Behold_, says he, in the text, _the\nformer things are come to pass_, i. e. the prophecies, I have delivered\nto you concerning your redemption from the Assyrian bondage, will\nsoon be so exactly completed, that I regard them as things _past;\nand therefore new things do I declare_; hence I claim your belief of\nother prophecies, concerning a much greater redemption, to take place\nhereafter, though there be no appearance, as yet, of any causes tending\nto produce it, _for before they spring forth, I tell you of them_. And\nthis appears to be the general method of _all_ God\u2019s prophets.\n\n3. With these _new things_, these Spiritual prophecies concerning\nthe _first_ coming of the Messiah, were likewise intermixed other\nprophecies, which ran out beyond that term, and prefigured the great\nevents of his SECOND coming: and the warrant for admitting _these_,\nwould be the completion of those other prophecies, in the person and\nsufferings of Christ[61]. That there are such prophecies in the Old\nTestament, will be shewn hereafter. In the mean time, it will not be\nthought incredible, that, if Jesus be indeed the end of the prophetic\nscheme, the revolutions of his _government_ should be foretold, as well\nas the circumstances of his personal appearance; in other words, that\nthe consummation of that design, which Providence was carrying on,\nwould not be overlooked, when the steps and gradations of it were so\ndistinctly noted. For, in any reasonable design whatsoever, the _end_\nis first and principally in view, though the _means_ engage, and may\nseem to engross, the attention of its author. It will then, I say,\nbe no surprise to us to find, that prophecy set out with announcing\nthe kingdom of the Messiah; that it never lost sight of that future\n\u0153conomy; and only produced it into clearer view, as the season\napproached for the introduction of it.\n\nTHUS MUCH concerning the _order and method_ of the Jewish prophecies;\nin which one cannot but adore the profound wisdom of their author. The\n_civil_ prophecies are, at once, the vehicle, and the credentials, of\nthe _spiritual_, concerning the _first_ coming of Jesus; and these\nlast, in their turn, support the credit of others, which point still\nfurther at his _second_ coming: a subject, more than intimated by the\n_legal_ prophets, but resumed and amply displayed by the _evangelical_.\nWhence we see, that the prophetic system is so constructed, as, in the\nprogress and various evolutions of it, to illustrate itself, and to\nafford an internal evidence of its divinity. One great purpose pervades\nthe whole: and the parts, of which it consists, gradually prepare and\nmutually sustain each other.\n\nBut this subject, so curious and important, is not yet to be dismissed.\nIt remains to be considered, whether _chance_, or _imposture_, can in\nany degree account for so extensive, so connected, and so intricate a\nsystem.\n\nOn the very face of the prophetic scriptures it appears, that one\nultimate purpose is in the contemplation of all the prophets. This\npurpose is unfolded by successive predictions, delivered in distant\ntimes, under different circumstances, and by persons, who cannot\nbe suspected of acting in concert with each other. It does not\nappear, that the later prophets always understood the drift of the\nmore ancient; or, that either of them clearly apprehended the whole\nscope and purpose of their own predictions. Yet, on comparing all\ntheir numerous prophecies with each other, and with the events, in\nwhich it is now presumed they have had their completion, we find a\nperfect harmony and consistency between them. Nothing is advanced\nby one prophet, that is contradicted by another. An unity of design\nis conspicuous in them all; yet without the least appearance of\n_collusion_, since _each_ prophet hath his own peculiar views, and\nenlarges on facts and circumstances, unnoticed by any other.\n\nFurther still, these various and successive prophecies are so\nintimately blended, and, as we may say, incorporated with each\nother, that the credit of all depends on the truth of each. For, the\naccomplishment of them falling in different times, every preceding\nprophecy becomes surety, as it were, for those that follow; and the\nfailure of any one must bring disgrace and ruin on all the rest.\n\nThen, again, consider that the prophetic spirit, which kept operating\nso uniformly and perpetually in what is called the _former age_,\nceased at that very time, when the great object, it had in view, was\ndisclosed; when that future \u0153conomy, which it first and last predicted,\nwas introduced: a _time_, too, which was precisely determined by\nthe old prophets themselves. Could they answer for what _design_ or\n_chance_ might be able to bring about? Is it credible, that this\nperennial fount of prophecy, which ran so copiously from Adam to\nChrist, and watered all the ages of the Jewish church, should stop,\nat once, in so critical a season; and should never flow again in any\nfuture age; if fortune, or fraud, or fanaticism, had dispensed its\nstreams, if any thing indeed, but the hand of God, had opened its\nsource, and directed its current?\n\nNor let it be objected that a succession of prophets was _interrupted_\nfor some ages before the coming of Christ. It was so: but not,\ntill preceding prophets had marked out the precise _time_ of his\ncoming[62]; not, till Malachi, with whom the word of prophecy ceased\nfor a time, had foretold that this interrupted series should be resumed\nand finally closed by Elijah, the last Jewish prophet and _precursor_\nof the Messiah[63]; and not, till it had been expressly declared, that\nthis eclipsed light of prophecy should break forth again with redoubled\nlustre, in the _days_ of the Messiah[64]. Who would not conclude, then,\nfrom this very intermission, that prophecy was given, or withheld, as\nthe wisdom of God ordained, and not as the caprice or policy of man\ndirected?\n\nIt may not be pretended, that the age, in which prophecy finally ceased\namong the Jews, will account for the suppression of this faculty, \u201cfor\nthat it was an age of the greatest turbulency and disorder, and that\ntheir ruin and dispersion soon after followed.\u201d This pretence, I say,\nis altogether frivolous. For it was precisely in those circumstances,\nthat their ancient prophets were most numerous, and their inspirations\nmost abundant. It was during the calamitous season of their\ncaptivities, that the prophetic power had been most signally exercised\namong the Jews. And now, when they were carried captive into all lands,\nnot a single prophet arose, or hath arisen to this day, either for\ntheir reproof, or consolation[65].\n\nIf it be said, \u201cthat the pagan oracles ceased, too, about the same\ntime; and that the same cause, namely, the diffused light and knowledge\nof the Augustan age, was fatal to both;\u201d besides, that this diffusion\nof light, for obvious reasons, was not likely to affect the Jewish\nprophecies, and did not, as we certainly know, in any degree diminish\nthe credit of them, with that people, the fact itself, assumed in\nthe objection, is plainly false. For the pagan oracles continued\nfor several ages after that of Augustus; they became less frequent,\nonly, as Christianity gained ground; and were not silenced, but among\nthe last struggles of expiring paganism[66]. So that if the Jewish\nprophecies, like those of the Gentile world, had been the issue of\n_fraud_, or _fanaticism_ (_principles_, that operate at all times, and,\nwith redoubled force and activity, in the dark days of persecution) one\ndoes not see, why they might not have continued to this day among the\nbigoted professors of that religion.\n\nNow, put all these things together, that is, The long duration of\nthe prophetic system\u2014the mutual dependance and close connexion of\nits several parts\u2014the consistency and uniformity of its views,\nall terminating in one point\u2014and the final suppression of it (as\nwas likewise foretold) at the very time, when those views were\naccomplished; consider, I say, all this, and see, if there be not\nsomething more than a blind credulity in the advocates for the divinity\nof such a system. See, if there be any instance upon record\u2014of so\nnumerous prophecies\u2014so long continued\u2014so intimately related to each\nother and to one common end\u2014so apparently verified\u2014and so signally\nconcluded. If there be, I shall not wonder at the suspense and\nhesitation of _wise men_, on this subject: but if, on the other hand,\nno such thing was ever seen, or heard of, out of the land of Jud\u00e6a,\nthey must excuse us if we incline to think their diffidence misplaced,\nand their scruples unnecessary, at least, if not disingenuous.\n\nI descend no farther into a detail on the scriptural prophecies\nconcerning Christ\u2019s _first coming_. The immensity of the subject,\nand the plan prescribed to me in this Lecture, equally restrain me\nfrom this attempt. _Obscurities_ there may, and must be, in so vast\na scheme: _Objections_ may, and must occur to the construction and\napplication of particular prophecies. But let any serious man take the\nBible into his hands; let him consider, not _all_ the prophecies in\nthat book, but such as are more obvious and intelligible; and let him\ncompare such _prophecies_, as he must acknowledge, and may, in part at\nleast, understand, with the _facts_, in which he sees their completion,\nor so far, as he may think it _probable_ that they have been completed;\nand I dare be confident that such an inquirer will be much struck\nwith the amount of the evidence from prophecy, in support of divine\nrevelation. If, indeed, on this general survey, he find nothing to\naffect him, I shall not desire him to push his researches into the\nmore secret and mysterious prophecies: much less, shall I advise him to\nwade through that cloud of smaller difficulties, in which the ignorant\ntemerity of some writers, and the _obscure diligence_ of others, hath\ninvolved _this_, as it easily may any other, subject.\n\nTO SPEAK PLAINLY, the only consideration, which to me seems likely\nto perplex fair and candid minds, is this\u2014\u201cThat the argument from\nprophecy is understood to be addressed to those, who admit the divinity\nof the Jewish scriptures\u2014that the Jews themselves were eminently in\nthis situation\u2014that, besides this advantage, the Jews were better\nqualified, than any others, to interpret their own prophecies; and to\njudge of their completion\u2014and yet, that these very men neither were,\nnor are convinced by this argument.\u201d\n\nSeveral things are here asserted, which deserve to be explained. I take\nthem in an inverted order.\n\nI. It is said, \u201c_that the Jews were not, and are not to this day,\nconvinced by the argument from prophecy_.\u201d This allegation is in\npart _false_: for multitudes[67], from among the Jews, were, in the\napostolic age, converted to Christianity; and these are well known\nto have laid a peculiar stress on this argument. The greater part\nof that people, indeed, disbelieved, and have continued to this day\nin their infidelity. But then let it be considered, 1. that we have\nan adequate cause of this effect, in the _prejudices_ of the Jewish\nnation; _prejudices_, of which their whole history evidently convicts\nthem. 2. That, notwithstanding their rejection of Jesus, they admit the\nexistence and authority of those prophecies, which we apply to him;\nand that they themselves have constantly applied these very prophecies\nto their expected Messiah: so that the question between us is only\nthis, Whether they, or we, _rightly_ apply them. 3. That their perverse\nobstinacy in refusing to submit to the evidence of their prophecies, is\nitself foretold by their own prophets.\n\nII. But it is further said, \u201c_that their authority, in this\ncontroversy, is greater than ours, for that they must best understand\ntheir own prophecies, and judge best of their completion_.\u201d\n\n1. I do not perceive on what ground of reason this is said. The old\nprophecies belong to us, as well as to them; and have been considered\nwith as much diligence by Christian, as by Jewish expositors. Their\ncustoms, their history, their traditions, are equally known to both\nparties. Their very language hath been studied by Christians with a\ncare, not inferior to that which the Jews themselves employ upon it;\nwith a _care_, that not unfrequently, in _both_, hath degenerated into\nsuperstition.\n\nIf it be said, \u201cthat the _ancient_ Jews, that is, the Jews in the\ntime of Christ, must have been better qualified, than we now are,\nto interpret the prophecies, the language, they spoke, being only\na dialect of that in which the prophecies are written,\u201d the answer\nis already given, under the last article: to which we may further\nadd, that Christianity being much better understood now, than it was\nthen, the force of the prophetic language concerning it (if, indeed,\nthe prophecies have any such thing in view) must be more distinctly\napprehended, in many instances, by Christians at this day, than it\ncould be by the Jews, even when they spoke a dialect of the Hebrew\nlanguage. So that still I do not see, upon the whole, what advantage\nthe Jews, whether of ancient or modern times, can be thought to have\nover us, in explaining the prophetic scriptures. And then\n\n2. As to the _completion_ of the prophecies, the same histories are in\nthe hands of both: and if they do not apply them, as we do the appeal\nis open to common sense. Every man is left at liberty to judge for\nhimself, which side is best supported in the application of them. The\nprejudice might, indeed, be thought equal on _both_ sides, if it were\nnot decided by their own scriptures, that no prejudice of any people\nupon earth was ever so invincible, as that of the Jews.\n\n3. Lastly, on both heads, there is a peculiar presumption, that they,\nand not we, are misled by prejudice: It is this: They were led by their\nprophecies, as interpreted by themselves, to expect that they would be\ncompleted at the _time_, in which, we say, they were completed; and it\nwas not till after the coming of Christ that they began to interpret\nthem differently, and to look out for another completion of them. Judge\nthen, if they, or we, are likely to have erred most, through prejudice,\nin expounding and applying the prophecies. The natural and proper sense\nwill be thought to be that, in which we take them; for that sense\noccurred first to themselves, and was, in truth, _their_ sense, before\nwe adopted it.\n\nWhen I say\u2014_their sense_\u2014I mean, especially, in respect to the\n_time_, which they had fixed for the accomplishment of the prophecies\nconcerning the Messiah: for, as to their giving a _temporal_ sense\nto some prophecies, in which we find a _spiritual_, that is another\nmatter, concerning which, as I said, the appeal lies to every competent\nand dispassionate inquirer. In the mean time, it must be thought\nsome presumption in favour of the Christian interpretation, that,\nwhereas the JEWS, in rejecting a spiritual or mystical sense of those\nprophecies (which yet is admitted by them, without scruple, on other\noccasions, and is well suited to the genius of their whole religion)\nare driven to the necessity of supposing a _two-fold Messias_\u2014a new\nconceit, taken up, without warrant from their scriptures, and against\ntheir own former ideas and expectations\u2014WE, on the contrary, by the\nhelp of that spiritual sense, are able to explain all the prophecies\nof _one and the same Messias_, conformably to the _event_, and even to\nthe _time_ which the Jews themselves had prefixed for the completion of\nthem.\n\nNow, when, of two interpretations, _one_ has apparently all the marks\nof shift, constraint, and distress in it, and the _other_ comes out\neasy, uniform, and consistent; we may guess beforehand, as I said,\nwhich of them is likely to be well-founded.\n\nIII. Still it is pretended, \u201cthat the argument from prophecy is\nproperly addressed to those only who admit the divinity of the Jewish\nscriptures, as the Jews have invariably done; and that it hath no\nforce, but on that previous supposition. Why then is the argument\npressed on others, who do not believe the divine authority of those\nscriptures? And how should it prevail with _any_, whether believers or\nnot, when the Jews themselves, who of all men most firmly believe that\nauthority, are not convinced by it?\u201d\n\nThe _latter_ part of the difficulty, which respects the incredulity of\nthe Jews, hath been already removed; so far, I mean, as it is founded\non their prejudices. As for the _assertion_, \u201cThat the argument from\nprophecy presupposes the truth and divinity of the Jewish scriptures,\nand must therefore have most weight with the Jews, or rather hath no\nweight at all, but with them, or with others, who admit that common\nprinciple,\u201d though something, like this, may have been said, I take it\nto be wholly unsupported, as well by _fact_, as by any _good reason_.\n\n1. I argue against this assumption from _fact_; that is, from the\n_method_, taken by the early Christians to convert the Gentile world,\nand from the _success_ of that method.\n\nIf we look into the history of the Gospel, we shall find the\nApostle Peter, pressing this argument from prophecy on the gentile\nCornelius[68]; and the Apostle Paul, urging it with effect, on the\nJews indeed first, but also on the Asiatic Gentiles[69]. If we turn to\nthe Christian apologists, we shall find them addressing this topic to\nGentile unbelievers, nay, as venturing the whole cause of Christianity\non this single argument[70]. Justin Martyr makes as free use of it in\nhis apology to the Antonines, as in his dialogues with Trypho. We know,\ntoo, the success of this argument, thus employed, in many instances:\nand therefore see, as well the _fitness_ of the argument to produce\nthis effect, as the _judgment_ of the Apostles and primitive Christians\nconcerning its fitness. But to come\n\n2. _to the reason of the thing_.\n\nThe Jews, who professed to believe, and did, in fact, believe, the\ndivine inspiration of their sacred oracles, were, doubtless, bound\nby their own principles, to expect with assurance the due completion\nof them. The Gentiles, who did not previously respect those oracles\nas of divine authority, but regarded them only in the light of human\nconjectures, yet saw that such passages, whether we call them oracular\nor conjectural, did, in truth, occur in the Jewish scriptures; and\nwere obliged to admit, on the faith of historical testimony, that\nthose scriptures were composed by the persons whose names they bear,\nand at the times fixed for the composition of them. What then is the\ndifference of the two cases? Only this: the Jews believed that their\noracles would be fulfilled, because they held them to be divine;\nthe Gentiles had to wait till those oracles were fulfilled, before\nthey acknowledged their divinity. In either case, the argument is\nindependent of the belief, or the expectation, and turns on the\ncompletion only. Then, indeed, the Jew sees that his belief was well\nfounded, and the Gentile admits that the prediction was divine.\n\nThe mistake would be equal, on the other hand, to conceive, that the\nargument from prophecy pre-supposes the divine inspiration of the New\nTestament. It pre-supposes only the historical truth of that book.\nAdmit this, and compare the events recorded in that history, with\nthe prophecies to which they correspond, and the divinity of both\nTestaments is proved. For then, the pretensions of Jesus are made good,\nby the _completion_ of the prophecies; and the inspiration of the\nprophets is concluded, from the _delivery_ of them.\n\nIn both cases (let me repeat it) it is not the authority of the books\ncontaining the prophecies, nor of the books recording the facts in\nwhich they are fulfilled, but simply the _completion_ of the prophecies\nin those facts, seen and acknowledged, which infers the divinity of\neither Testament. Even the Jew would retract his high opinion of the\nprophecies, if he did not admit or expect the accomplishment of them;\nand the Christian would renounce his faith in Jesus, if his history\ndid not accord to the prophecies, alledged.\n\n\u2019Tis true, that, with either, the argument would gain more _attention_,\nthan with such as professed no previous belief in the divinity of\nthe Old or New Testament. But its force is really the same, on both\nsuppositions. It lies merely in the conviction, which one hath from the\nevidence produced, that certain prophetic passages were delivered in\nthe _Old_ Testament, and have been fulfilled by certain corresponding\nevents, related in the _New_.\n\nOn the whole, there is no reason to conclude, that we are not as good\njudges of the argument from prophecy, as the Jews were; or, that this\nargument ought to have the less weight with us, because the Jews\nwere not convinced by it. For the argument doth in no degree depend\non _faith_, but is calculated to produce it. It is equally strong,\nor equally weak, to a Christian, or Jew, or even to an unbeliever:\nthe sole point in question being this, Whether such things, as were\nprophetically delivered, appear to have been fulfilled: a point, on\nwhich common sense and common honesty will equally decide, on every\nsupposition.\n\nI know, indeed, that, unless we suppose the inspiration of the\nprophets, _some_ passages, delivered by them, will not so probably be\nthought to _intend_ Christ, as they will be, if we acknowledge that\nprinciple: and, on the other hand, that there are _some_ circumstances\nin the history of Jesus, which will not be so readily seen to _refer_\nto preceding prophecies, if the inspiration of Jesus and his Apostles\nbe not previously admitted. But I do not argue, at present, from either\nof these topics. There are passages enough, clearly _predictive_ of\nthe Messiah, and clearly _accomplished_ in him, to afford a solid\nfoundation for the argument from prophecy, as here instituted, without\nlooking out for any other of more nice and ambiguous interpretation.\n\nHence we see the dangerous mistake of those, who contend that the\nargument from prophecy hath not, of itself, the nature of a _direct\npositive proof_ of our religion. Prophecies fulfilled, I mean such\nprophecies as _those_ in question, prove invincibly the divine\ninspiration of the prophets. But, if the prophets were inspired, the\ndivine mission of him, in whom the predicted marks of the Messiah\nmeet, must needs be acknowledged. And what more is required to prove\nthe truth of Christianity? Not even the evidence of _miracles_,\nperformed by Christ, if the prophecies had not made them one mark\nof his character. The truth is, _Prophecies_ and _Miracles_ are, in\nthemselves, two distinct positive proofs. Either proof is _direct_,\nand would have been sufficient, if the other had not been given. But\nthe divine goodness, for our more abundant satisfaction, and to leave\ninfidelity without excuse, hath made the one proof dependent on the\nother: so that neither the argument from prophecy is complete, without\nthe _miracles_; nor the argument from miracles, as applied to Christ,\nunless he likewise appear to have fulfilled the _prophecies_. Can\nwe desire a stronger proof, that neither _they_, who predicted the\n_miracles_, were _false prophets_, nor _he_, who claimed to himself the\napplication of ALL the _prophecies_, was a _false Messiah_?\n\nThese reflexions, on the _method and order_ of the prophecies, of those\nespecially concerning Christ\u2019s FIRST COMING; together with what has\nbeen said on the _independency_ of this argument on Jewish or Christian\nconcessions; may serve to convince us, That we shall do well to suspend\nour conclusions concerning the evidence of prophecy, till we have\nexamined the _whole_ subject. In the mean time, _this part_ of the\nsubject, thus far opened and explained, leads us, with advantage, to\nthe consideration of _that_, which is yet behind and is the peculiar\nobject of this Lecture, I mean _the prophecies concerning_ CHRIST\u2019S\nSECOND COMING.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON VI.\n\nPROPHECIES CONCERNING CHRIST\u2019S SECOND COMING.\n\nISAIAH xlii. 9.\n\n_Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I\ndeclare: before they spring forth, I tell you of them._\n\n\nIt must strike the most careless reader of the prophecies to observe,\nthat the general subject of them all was announced from the earliest\ntime, and was only drawn out more distinctly by succeeding prophets:\nthat, of the two _ages_, into which the world of God, I mean his\n_religious_ world, is divided in holy scripture, the _former_, which\nabounds most in prophecy, was plainly made subservient to the\n_latter_: that not only the events of that preceding age are foretold\nby its own prophets, but that the fortunes of the last, and very remote\nage, are occasionally revealed by them; and that the same oracles,\nwhich attest the _first coming_ of Christ, as if impatient to be\nconfined to so narrow bounds, overflow, as it were, into the future\nage, and expatiate on the principal facts and circumstances of his\n_second coming_.\n\nBy this divine artifice, if I may so speak, the two dispensations, the\nJewish and Christian, are closely tied together, or rather compacted\ninto one intire harmonious system; such, as we might expect, if it were\nindeed formed, and conducted by him, _to whom are known all his works\nfrom the beginning_[71].\n\nSo that, in respect of the fortunes, which were to befall the Christian\nchurch, even in the _latter days_, we may still ask, in the triumphant\nterms of the Jewish prophet\u2014_Have ye not known? Have ye not heard?\nHath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood\nfrom the foundation of the earth[72]?_\n\nBut, though this subject was opened by the old prophets, so far\nas seemed expedient in that _age_, and clearly enough, to shew\nthe integrity and continuity of the whole system, it was more\nillustriously, because more distinctly, displayed by the evangelical\nprophets.\n\nAnd here, again, the same provision of wisdom and goodness meets us, as\nbefore. The Christian prophets, like the Jewish, bespeak our attention\nto what they reveal of the greater and more distant events in their\ndispensation, by other less momentous prophecies, which were speedily\nto be accomplished[73]; thus, impressing upon us an awful sense of\ntheir divine foresight, and procuring an easy credit from us to their\nsubsequent predictions: _while the events, which both these prophetic\nschemes point out, are so distributed through all time, as to furnish,\nsuccessively, to the several ages of the world, the means of a fresh\nand still growing conviction_[74].\n\nAS THE ORDER of these Discourses, now, leads me to exemplify this\n_last_ observation, I shall do it in THREE remarkable prophecies\nconcerning the Christian church; I mean those, which respect 1. THE\nDESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 2. THE DISPERSION OF THE JEWS. And 3. THE\nCONVERSION OF THE GENTILES.\n\nI refer to these prophecies, as well known. They are in the number\nof those, which, in part, were delivered by the Jewish prophets; and\nafterwards, more distinctly revealed by the Christian.\n\nI. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH CITY AND TEMPLE, is an event of the\nutmost moment in the view of revealed religion. It accomplished a great\nnumber of prophecies, and vindicated the honour of Jesus, by a signal\nvengeance on his murderers. It answered, besides, _other_ important\npurposes of divine providence; by putting a visible and necessary end\nto the Jewish \u0153conomy, which was now to give way to the dispensation\nof the Messiah; and by dispersing the Jews into all lands, for many\nwise and admirable reasons. Hence, of all the prophecies, delivered\nby Christ himself (who was a prophet, though indeed _much more than a\nprophet_) _This_ alone is displayed by him, at large, and in all its\ncircumstances.\n\nIf any man, unacquainted with these matters, should doubt, whether\nthis prophecy of Jesus, as recorded in three of the four Gospels, were\nnot delivered, that is, _forged_, after the event, I might refer him\nto the numerous writers on that subject. But I hold it sufficient to\nsay, 1, On the faith of all antiquity, that these Gospels were not\nonly written, but published to the world, before the destruction of\nJerusalem\u20142, that the early date of their composition is apparent from\nmany internal characters, dispersed through these writings\u20143, that no\ninterpolation of this prophecy could afterwards take place, because the\nprophecy is interwoven with the general thread of the history\u2014and,\n4, lastly, that no unbeliever of the primitive times, whether Jew or\nGentile, when pressed, as both frequently were, by this prophecy,\nappears to have had recourse to the charge, either of forgery, or\ninterpolation[75].\n\nThe authenticity and early date of the prophecy is, then, on these\ngrounds, assumed.\n\nI will, further, suppose (because the history of Josephus invincibly\nproves it) that all the particulars, mentioned in this prophecy,\nconcurred in the _event_.\n\n\u201cBut this, you will say, might well be: for what more _uniform_, than\nthe characters of distress in a _great_ city, forced and desolated by\na superior enemy? And what more _probable_, than that, some time or\nother, such should be the fate of _every_ great city?\u201d\n\nIt may further be insinuated, \u201cThat, if ever Jerusalem was to be\ndestroyed, the obstinate humour of its inhabitants, and the _nature\nof the place_, would probably draw this destruction upon it, in the\nway it actually happened, in the way of _siege_[76]: that, then, all\nthe miseries, endured by the Jews, would naturally fall on a desperate\npeople from an irritated and successful conqueror; above all, in\nancient times, when conquest and clemency were little acquainted with\neach other: that, as for the preceding _wars, famines, pestilences, and\nearth-quakes_ (which are mentioned, in the prophecy, as _signs_ of the\napproaching desolation) _these_, are such usual things in the course of\nthe world, as may be safely made the prognostics of any predicted event\nwhatsoever: that Jesus, therefore, as any other wise man, might form\nhis prediction on these principles; and trust to time, and the passions\nof mankind, for the completion of it.\u201d\n\nNow, let all this be allowed (and scepticism itself will hardly make\nother or greater demands upon us) still, the honour of Jesus stands\nsecure; and this fine fabric of suspicion is overturned at once, if we\nreflect on _two or three_ circumstances, unluckily, and, if the prophet\nbe not divine, unnecessarily wrought into the texture of this famous\nprophecy.\n\n_First_, I observe, that this destruction was to come from _the hands\nof the Romans_[77]; and, without doubt, if it were to happen in any\nreasonable time, it could not so probably be expected to come from any\nother quarter. But, then, was it _likely_ that Jud\u00e6a, at that time a\nRoman province, should be thus isolated by its own masters? Was it\nto be _presumed_, that so small a province should dare to engage in\na formal contest with Rome, the mistress of the world, as well as of\nJud\u00e6a? with Rome, then the zenith of her power, and irresistible to\nall nations? Was it _conceivable_, if any future distraction of that\nmighty empire should tempt the Jews to oppose their feeble efforts to\nits high fortune, that a vengeance so signal, so complete, should be\ntaken upon them? that nothing less than a total _extermination_ should\nbe proposed, and effected? The ruin of the temple at Jerusalem was to\nbe so entire, that _one stone should not be left upon another_. Allow\nfor the exaggerated terms of a prophetic description; still, was it\n_imaginable_, that the Romans should, in any proper sense of the words,\nexecute this denunciation? Was it _their_ way, as it was afterwards\nthat of the Goths, to wage war with _stones_? Was it a principle with\n_them_, to beat down the _pride_ of buildings, as well as of _men_[78]?\nWould even their _policy_, or their _pride_, have suffered them to blot\nout an ancient, a renowned, an illustrious temple, the chief ornament\nof their province, the glory of the East, and the trophy of their own\nconquests?\n\nSuch an event was very improbable, in contemplation: and history shews,\nthat it did not come to pass in any ordinary way. For the instrument,\nin the hands of Heaven, of this exterminating vengeance, was a man,\nthe most unlikely of all others to inflict it; a man, who by nature\nabhorred such extremities; who, in fact, did his utmost to prevent this\ndreadful catastrophe, and _could not_ prevent it[79].\u2014Still, a more\nunmanageable circumstance, than this, occurs in the prophecy. For,\n\n_Secondly_, it is implied that ONE of our Lord\u2019s disciples should\nsurvive this desolation[80]: and it is expressly asserted, that the\nthen _subsisting generation should not pass away, before all these\nthings were accomplished_[81]. They WERE accomplished, within forty\nyears from the date of the prophecy, and before the death of that\ndisciple. The fact is certain and undeniable: I leave the rest to your\nown reflexions.\n\n_Thirdly_, warning is given in this prophecy to the disciples of Jesus,\nto fly from this impending ruin; and a signal is held out to them,\nfor that purpose[82]. It is further predicted, that they should avail\nthemselves of this signal and so entirely escape the snare, in which\nthe rest of their countrymen should be taken, that _not a hair of their\nheads should perish_[83]. And this part of the prophecy was, it seems,\ncompleted[84].\n\n_Lastly_, this prophecy was incumbered with another strange event,\n_needlessly_ incumbered with it, if the whole were an imposture. It\nis said, _that the Gospel should be preached in all the world, for a\nwitness unto all nations_, before it should be fulfilled. Was it not\nenough to say, that the prophecy should be accomplished in the time of\nthat generation, and in the life-time of St. John, without adding so\nunlikely a circumstance, as that a general promulgation of the Gospel,\nby a few unlettered and unfriended fishermen, should precede the\naccomplishment of it?\u2014I know, that this part of the prophecy admits a\nsecondary sense: but, in the primary sense, it was so far fulfilled, as\nto astonish us with the divine foresight of its author.\n\nI omit other considerations, that might be alledged. But you see\nthat, setting aside such particulars in the prophecy, as sceptical\nmen may think themselves able to draw within the sphere of _human\nconjecture_, there are several things expressed in it, so strange to\nall apprehension, so unlikely to happen, so impossible for any natural\nsagacity to foresee, and yet so certainly and punctually fulfilled,\nthat nothing short of _divine inspiration_ can possibly account for\nthem. The prophecy, in all its parts, is divine: but in _these_, its\ndivinity is clear and incontestable.\n\nII. THE DISPERSION OF THE JEWS, is another event, which deserves your\nconsideration.\n\nMoses himself had predicted this circumstance of their fortune, in\nterms of the greatest energy. He had told them\u2014_that they should be\nremoved into all the kingdom of the earth, and that they should be\nscattered among all people from one end of the earth even unto the\nother_\u2014that, among the nations, into which they should be driven,\n_they should find no ease, nor rest, and that they should be only\noppressed and crushed alway_\u2014that they should _become an astonishment,\na proverb, and a by-word among all nations_\u2014and that _their plagues\nshould be wonderful, and of long continuance_[85]. These prophecies had\nbeen, to a certain degree, fulfilled in other parts of their history:\nbut there was to be a time, when _the wrath of God should come upon\nthem to the uttermost_[86]. This time was now come, when their city was\ndestroyed, and their land desolated, by the arms of Titus. Then, as\nJesus prophesied of them, _were the days of vengeance, that all things,\nwhich were written, should be fulfilled_: then, were they _to be led\naway captive into all nations_: and thenceforth, _was Jerusalem to be\ntrodden down of the Gentiles, until_ THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES SHOULD\nBE FULFILLED[87].\n\nNor say, that this _last_ prophecy is _indefinite_: for _the times\nof the Gentiles_ is a period, well known in the prophetic writings;\na period, of long duration indeed, as the event hath shewn; yet a\nperiod, marked out by other prophecies (which may come, in turn, to\nbe considered in this Lecture) no less distinctly, than their other\ncaptivities had been.\n\nFor, to all these predictions there must be added _one_ more, which\nexpressly asserts the return of this people, in some future age, from\ntheir long and wretched dispersion: for _blindness, in part_, only,\n_hath happened to Israel_; and that again, _till the fulness of the\nGentiles be come in_[88]. This, St. Paul terms _a mystery_: and yet\nthe ancient prophets had a glimpse of it, when they foretold, _that\nthe Lord would not make a full end of them_[89], and that a remnant of\nthem _should remain, and should return in the latter days_[90]. Moses\nhimself, who had denounced such heavy judgements upon them, and of so\n_long continuance_, during their dispersion, had mingled, with his\nwoes, this one note of mercy\u2014_And yet for all that, when they lie in\nthe land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I\nabhor them, to destroy them_ UTTERLY, _and to break my covenant with\nthem_[91].\n\nConsider these predictions, and compare them with the present and past\nstate of this people for seventeen hundred years; and see, if there be\nnothing to take your attention, or, rather, your astonishment, in the\ncompletion of them.\n\nWhy is this dreadful vengeance, _singular_ in its circumstances, and\nnever yet experienced by any other people on the face of the earth,\nwhy is this peculiar vengeance executed on the Jews?\u2014Or, whatever the\n_cause_ may be, is not the _fact_ such as was predicted?\n\n\u201cThe predictions, you will say, have the appearance of being fulfilled.\nBut where is the wonder, that a people, distinguished by a _singular_\nreligion, and above measure _addicted_ to it, should continue to exist\nunder that distinction, and should be every where known by it? That a\npeople, on account of their profession, more than commonly obnoxious\nto the other religious sects, among whom the earth hath been chiefly\nparcelled out\u2014to the _Heathen_, for their unconquerable aversion\nto idolatry\u2014to the _Christians_, for the atrocious murder of their\nfounder\u2014to the _Mahometans_, for the constant rejection of their\nprophet\u2014should be the scorn and outcast of all three; and that, being\nexcluded from the only country, to which they have any attachment,\nthey should be vagabonds on the earth, and should disperse themselves\nindifferently through every quarter of it, as caprice, or interest, or\nconvenience, invites them? that, lastly, being thus distinguished from\nall men, and thus at enmity with all, they should never be suffered\nto enter into any other civil community, or to establish a distinct\ncommunity of their own?\u201d\n\nBut the wonder doth not lie, altogether, where these questions seem to\nplace it. That the Jews, while they profess themselves such, should be\nthus treated, may be natural enough: but that they should _continue_,\nfor so many ages, under such treatment; every where and always spurned,\nreviled, oppressed; yet neither worn out by this usage; nor induced\nby it to renounce their offensive profession, and take refuge in the\nmass of people among whom they live; that neither time, nor custom, nor\nsuffering, should get the better of their bigotry or patience; but that\nthey should still subsist a numerous, a distinct, a wretched people, as\nthey do, to this day\u2014all this hath something prodigious in it, which\nthe common principles of human nature will not easily explain[92].\n\nWe, who admit the divine origin of their religion; and, adore, with\nthem, the extraordinary providence, by which their polity was so long\nadministered and upheld; can, better than any others, explain this\ndifficulty. For, what so likely to produce an invincible attachment to\ntheir Law, as the abundant evidence, they had of its authority? But\nneither will this account of the matter be found satisfactory. For,\nas if on purpose to discredit this solution, their history informs\nus, That _ten_, of the twelve tribes, which originally composed their\nnation, did, in fact, disappear under their last captivity, and were,\nin a good measure at least, absorbed in it. If such, then, was the\nfate of _Israel_ in its dispersion, within the compass of not many\ngenerations, and yet the relics of _Judah_ are still preserved in all\ncountries to this day, what better or other reason can we assign for\nthis difference of fortune in two branches of the same people, equally\nattached to the same divine Law, than that the _former_ were left to\nthe natural consequences of a dispersion, and that the _latter_ were\npurposely kept from being affected by them, as the prophecies had\ndistinctly foretold?\n\nIf it be still said, \u201cThat there is nothing more extraordinary in\nthis continuance of the Jews, under their dispersion, than of other\nreligionists in like circumstances; of the _Christians_ for instance,\nunder the Turkish dominion;\u201d the cases (to say nothing of the\ndifference in point of _time_) are, in many respects, entirely unlike.\n\nThe Asiatic CHRISTIANS derive a confidence, and some degree of\nprotection, from the many flourishing Christian empires, which subsist\nin other quarters of the world.\n\nTHEY, can perform all the duties of their religion, as perfectly in the\ncountries, where they reside, as in any other.\n\nTHEY, have the future hopes of the Gospel, the proper sanction of their\nLaw, to support them in all the distresses, to which their Christian\nprofession may, at present, expose them. What is it to them, as St.\nAustin well observed in a like case, that they suffer for a season\nin a strange land; when even in their _own_, that is, a Christian\ncountry, they are still obliged, by the principles of their religion,\nto consider themselves, _as strangers and pilgrims on the earth_[93]?\n\nThe condition of the JEWS, on the other hand, is widely different.\nTHEY, profess a religion, founded on temporal promises, only: and how\nmiserably these have failed them, the experience of many ages hath now\nshewn.\n\nThe JEWS, are shut out from the only country in the world, where the\nseveral rites and ordinances of their religion can be regularly and\n_lawfully_ observed.\n\nThe JEWS, have, besides, the sensible mortification of knowing, that\nall their brethren of the dispersion are every where in equal distress\nwith themselves; and that there is not one Jewish state or sovereignty\nsubsisting on the face of the whole earth.\n\nIt follows, that in the JEWS, we find nothing but their _destiny_, so\nplainly read to them by their own prophets, as well as ours, to account\nfor their long continuance in their present dispersion: whereas, the\n_Asiatic Christians_ have many resources of comfort within themselves;\nand may subsist, in Mahometan countries, on the same general motives\nand inducements, which sustain the courage of other unhappy men.\n\nYet, notwithstanding the advantages, here pointed out, on the side of\nthe Asiatic Christians, the _fact_ is, that they are reduced to a very\nsmall number, and are insensibly melting away under the oppressions\nof their Ottoman masters; so that in no long time, if that enormous\ntyranny should be permitted to continue, they may, not improbably,\nquite vanish out of those countries, where they had formerly so many\nand flourishing churches: whereas, the Jews continue every where to\nabound in great numbers; they thrive under their oppressions; and\nseem to multiply amidst their distresses; as if the order of things\nwere reversed in regard to them, and the same causes operated to the\nconservation of this people, which tend so naturally to the waste and\ndestruction of every other.\n\nStill, I have another reflexion, or two, to make on this interesting\nsubject.\n\n1. It deserves to be considered, that the _natives_ of any country,\nthough subdued and enslaved by a foreign nation, may, indeed, subsist\nvery long under that distinction. Thus, the Gentoo Indians have\npreserved their name and race, under their Mahometan invaders: and\nthus, the Moors, if they had not been violently expelled, might\nhave continued a distinct people for many ages, in their old Spanish\nquarters. But that small colonies of men, transported into _strange_\nand populous nations, should preserve a distinct existence, and not\ninsensibly moulder away, and mix themselves with their numerous native\nmasters; This, I think, is without example in the history of mankind.\nIf the Jews might be expected to abound any where, it should, methinks,\nbe in Jud\u00e6a; where the sight of the _holy land_, and the memory of\ntheir past fortunes, might invigorate their prejudices, and perpetuate\ntheir attachment to the Jewish name and worship. But it so happens,\nthat the number of Jews in that country hath now for many ages been\ninconsiderable, while they swarm in every other.\n\n2. It should, further, I think, be observed, that a _sect_, whether\nyou will call it of _religion_, or _philosophy_, may subsist through a\nlong tract of ages; I mean, that certain opinions may continue to be\nprofessed by some people, or other, without intermission; as may be\ntrue of the _doctrine_ concerning _the two principles_, at all times\nso prevalent in the East; of that species of eastern _idolatry_, which\nconsists in the worship of _fire_; and in other instances. But that\nthese opinions, in circumstances any thing like those of the Jews,\nshould still be professed, not only by some, but by the _same_ men,\nthat is, by men known to be of the same extraction, as well as of a\ncertain persuasion; this, again, is, I think, a circumstance of great\nsingularity, and altogether unprecedented in the case of any other\npeople. Who knows, of what race or family the present Manichees are\ndescended, or the professors of the old Persian idolatry? The followers\nof the Mosaic law, are every where known to be of the stock of Abraham.\nThey are distinguished in all places, as being Jews by _descent_, as\nwell as by _Religion_.\n\n3. Supposing, what I think cannot be shewn, that the history of the\nworld furnishes an instance or two of a people circumstanced in all\nrespects, as the Jews are; these extraordinary cases would not much\nabate the wonder, we are now contemplating. For how happened it, that\na prophecy delivered above three thousand years ago concerning the\nfate of a _particular_ people, should be so exactly verified, as it\nhas hitherto been, when that fate is so far from being a common one,\nthat it has only taken place, in one or two instances besides, within\nthe compass of so many ages? And still more, how should it enter into\nthe head of Moses to deliver this prophecy, when, at the time of his\ndelivering it, he had absolutely no instance before his eyes of such\nfate, in the case of _any_ people?\n\nThese things, then, deserve to be well and seriously considered.\n\nLastly, We believe, on the faith of the sacred oracles, that the\nJews shall _never be destroyed utterly_, but shall exist a distinct\npeople, as they have hitherto done, _till the times of the Gentiles are\nfulfilled_. But here, you will say, the prophets indulged a natural\nprejudice in favour of their own nation; it being the way of all people\nto delight in such dreams of _existence and perpetuity_. It may be so:\nBut see, whether this _dream_ hath ever yet been so far realized, in\nthe case of any other people. The Romans, for instance, were as partial\nto themselves, and doted as much on the idea of their _perpetuity_, as\nthe Jews. But what now is become of their _eternal empire_? Consider,\ntherefore, the singular fate of the Jews through so many ages, and see\nwhether it be not credible from what is past, that the prophet was\nmoved by something more than a spirit of _national vanity_, when he\nsaid, _Fear thou not, O Jacob my servant, saith the Lord, for I am\nwith thee; for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have\ndriven thee_, BUT I WILL NOT MAKE A FULL END OF THEE[94].\n\nTo these prophecies concerning _Jerusalem_, and the _Jews_, I add\n\nIII. _A third, concerning_ THE CALL AND CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES TO\nCHRISTIANITY.\n\nThis prophecy is very remarkable, whether we consider\u2014_the matter of\nit_\u2014_the persons, by whom it was delivered_\u2014or, _the manner, in which\nit hath been fulfilled_.\n\n1. As it had been declared from the beginning, that in the promised\nseed, _all the nations of the earth should be blessed_, so the Gospel,\nor, the good tidings of that blessing, was, in due time, to be\ncommunicated to _all nations_. Further still, this Gospel was not only\nto be published to all nations, but to be acknowledged and received by\nthem. There are numberless prophecies to this purpose in the books\nof the Old Testament: prophecies, which say expressly\u2014_that God\nwould give unto the Messiah the heathen for his inheritance, and the\nuttermost parts of the earth for his possession_[95]\u2014_that from the\nrising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, his name should\nbe great among the Gentiles_[96]\u2014_It is a light thing_, says the\nprophet Isaiah, addressing himself, in the person of the Almighty, to\nthe Messiah, _that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes\nof Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will also give\nthee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to\nthe end of the earth_[97]. And Jesus himself, when he commissioned his\nApostles to publish his doctrine, did it in these words\u2014GO YE INTO ALL\nTHE WORLD, AND PREACH THE GOSPEL TO EVERY CREATURE[98].\n\nIt is unquestionable, therefore, from these and other passages[99],\nthat not the Jews only, but all nations were to be instructed in the\nChristian faith; that the Gospel was to be an universal religion;\nand that, thus, the Messiah was to be, in every sense, the Saviour of\nmankind. There is no doubt, I say, but that such is the language of the\nprophets; and that they clearly suppose the dispensation of the Gospel\nto have these views, and to terminate in this event.\n\nBut now, let any man consider with himself, what it is to proselyte\nthe whole race of mankind to one faith, and to one religion. Let him\nrevolve in his mind this great, this magnificent idea. Let him, next,\nturn his thoughts on what history and experience may suggest to him on\nthe subject. And then let him tell us, whether there be not something\nextraordinary in this project; whether, indeed, there be any other\nexample of this sort in the annals of mankind.\n\nIn the old world, the institutors of _pagan religion_ looked no\nfurther, than to single communities: each destined his ceremonies\nfor his own people only; and never presumed so far on the truth or\nimportance of his religious scheme, as to set it up for a standard of\nbelief or worship to the other nations of the earth. Even the _Jewish\nritual_ was so constituted as to respect the Jews only, and was even\npracticable no where but in the land of Jud\u00e6a.\n\nBut this idea of universality was equally strange to the _Doctors_,\nas to the Legislators, of the ancient world. Sects of philosophy,\nthere were many; espoused with zeal, and propagated with industry; and\nsome of them, of no small extent. Yet the most sanguine, or the most\nsuccessful of these speculatists never conceived so much as the idea\nof bringing all nations into their system. They presumed, indeed, that\ntruth, or probability at least, was on the side of their favourite\nopinions; but they beheld a neglect of them in others, with a sort of\nindifference; and, contenting themselves with their own superior skill\nor felicity, left it to the rest of the world to philosophize in their\nown way, and on their own principles. They seem not to have thought it\neither necessary or possible, that their own sentiments should become\nthe standing, universal persuasion of mankind.\n\n_Ambition_, I know, hath been sometimes enterprizing enough to think of\nsubduing the whole world. But this was the ambition of _power_, not of\nreligion, or philosophy: it was an ambition to subdue the _bodies_, not\nthe minds of men. This _last_ was a project, too big for a C\u00e6sar or an\nAlexander, much more, for a Numa or an Aristotle, to entertain. And I\nthink it certain, that, except in the scheme of Christianity, or such\nother schemes of revelation as have been copied from it[100], we shall\nno where find the idea of _universality_ to have taken place in any\nreligious or philosophical sect whatsoever[101].\n\nIf then this idea was _familiar_ to the Jewish and Christian prophets,\nyou will, at least, conclude that this circumstance is remarkable\nenough to engage your attention; and you will naturally ask, how it\ncame to pass that those prophets should adopt so strange a fancy,\nwhich appears not to have entered into the views or conceptions of\nother men.\n\nWhen you are in this train of inquiry, it will surprize you still more\nto find,\n\n2. _By what persons, these prophecies_, so remarkable for the _matter_\nof them, _were announced_.\n\nThe publishers of this extraordinary doctrine were, in one word, JEWS:\nthat is, men of the most narrow and contracted minds; men, brought\nup in the highest conceit of themselves, and in the utmost scorn and\ncontempt of the Gentiles; men, accustomed to think themselves the only\nfavourites of Heaven, and to regard the rest of the world, as outcasts\nof its providence; men, in short, induced, partly, by the genius of\ntheir religion, ill understood, and partly, by their carnal temper,\nlong indulged, to believe with assurance the perpetuity, the eternity\nof their divine law; and to deem it impossible that God should reign\nanywhere but in the land of Israel, or should impart his blessings to\nany that lived out of the Jewish pale.\n\nWas it, now, to be expected of such men, as these, that they should\nenlarge their ideas so far as to form the project of a new and\nuniversal religion; a religion, not imprinted outwardly on the flesh,\nbut _written in the heart_; a religion, that was to supersede and\nevacuate the law of Moses, to which they were so immoderately addicted,\nand to enlighten and bless and save the heathen, whom they so perfectly\ndespised and abhorred?\n\nYou will suspect, perhaps, that the meaning of these prophecies was\nno more, than that the Jewish Law should finally prevail over all\nother Laws, and be the sole predominant religion of the whole earth: a\nprejudice, very likely, it may be said, to possess the minds of such a\npeople as the Jews; and suitable enough to that zeal, which prompted\nthem _to compass sea and land_, as Jesus himself observed of them, _to\nmake one proselyte_[102].\n\nBut the contrary is apparent from the _structure_ of the Jewish Law,\nwhich, as I said, was so contrived, that it could not be observed out\nof Jud\u00e6a\u2014from the _tenour_ of that Law, addressed only to the house\nof Israel, and not obligatory to any other people\u2014from express\n_declarations_ of the prophets themselves; who call the dispensation\nof the Messiah, _a new Covenant_, a covenant _written in the heart_,\nin opposition to the law of circumcision[103]; who say, that the Lord\nwill _create new heavens and a new earth_, that is, in the prophetic\nlanguage, will institute a _new_ dispensation of religion, different\nfrom that, which he had given to the Jews, and _subversive_ of it[104];\nwho, lastly, speak of this dispensation, as of _one_, that should be\nestablished under _a new name_, and should be embraced by the Gentiles,\nas _such_, that is, by men, converted immediately to this new religion\nfrom their state of Gentilism, without passing through the strait gate\nof the Jewish Law[105].\n\nJudge, then, whether the prophets did not mean more than a\n_proselytism_ to their own religion, when they predicted, and in\nsuch terms, the future conversion of the Gentiles; and whether such\nideas, as these, could ever have entered into the hearts of Jews, if\nsomething, besides and above the natural suggestion of their own minds,\nhad not inspired their prophecies.\n\nAdd to all this, if you please, that Jesus was himself a Jew, and (to\nregard him as a man only) in the lowest class of the Jews, that is, of\nthe most confined and bigoted education; and yet was not restrained by\nhis prejudices from giving that sublime command to his followers\u2014GO\nAND TEACH ALL NATIONS.\n\nBut enough on the _doctrine_ itself, and on the _character_ of its\nteachers. It remains only\n\n3. To add one word, _on the manner, in which this prophecy_, concerning\nthe conversion of the Gentile world, _appears to have been completed_.\n\nThere are especially TWO prophecies on this subject, which merit our\nattentive consideration. ONE of them asserts, that the conversion of\nthe Gentile world shall take its rise from small and very unpromising\nbeginnings, and yet shall prevail speedily and to a vast extent;\nthe OTHER, that it shall prevail by pacific means only, without the\nintervention of any force or violence whatsoever.\n\n1. The FORMER of these prophecies is expressed thus\u2014_A little one\nshall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord\nwill hasten it in his time_[106]. In allusion to this prophecy,\nconcerning the rise and progress of Christianity, is that parable of\nour Lord applied to the kingdom of heaven\u2014_the kingdom of heaven_,\nsays he, _is like to a grain of mustard-seed, which a man took and\nsowed in his field: which indeed is the least of all seeds; but when\nit is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree: so\nthat the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof_[107].\nAnd, with regard to the _celerity_ with which this tree should grow\nup, we have a prophecy from Christ himself, and that wonderfully\nfulfilled\u2014that _his Gospel should be preached to all the world for a\ntestimony to all nations_, before the destruction of Jerusalem, or\nwithin forty years from the date of the prophecy.\n\nNow, consider the state of the Gospel, at our Lord\u2019s ascension. It\nwas left in the hands of a few, mean, unlearned, dispirited persons:\nwithout any countenance from authority; and with every difficulty,\nevery terror, opposed to them, and placed distinctly within their view.\n_Matth._ xxiv. 9. Yet these men were commissioned to spread this Gospel\nthrough the world, and had an express promise, that they should succeed\nin their attempt. Against all appearance, the success followed. In less\nthan half a century, _the sound of the Gospel went out into all lands_;\nand, within three centuries from the death of Christ, Christianity\nascended the imperial throne; _and had the utmost parts of the earth\nfor its possession_.\n\nTo encrease the wonder, this amazing revolution was brought about, by\n_pacific methods only_; as was, likewise, foretold\n\n2. In the LATTER of the _two_ prophecies, to which I before alluded.\n\nJesus himself quotes this prophecy from Isaiah in the following\nwords\u2014_Behold, my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, in whom\nmy soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall\nshew judgment_, i. e. declare a new Law, _to the Gentiles. He shall\nnot strive, nor cry, neither shall any man hear his voice in the\nstreets; a bruised reed shall he not break, and smoaking flax shall\nhe not quench_, i. e. (as all interpreters explain these proverbial\nexpressions) he shall not employ the least degree of force or violence\nin the propagation of this law, _till he send forth judgment unto\nvictory_, till it finally prevail against all opposition; _And in his\nname shall the Gentiles trust_. Matth. xii. 18-21.\n\nLet any man read the history of Christianity, from its first\npublication in Jud\u00e6a, to the conversion of Constantine, and then\nsee whether this prophecy hath not been exactly and illustriously\ncompleted. The followers of Jesus were numerous enough, long before\nthe empire became Christian, to have attempted the way of force, had\nit been permitted to them[108]: and the insults, the oppressions, the\npersecutions, which they suffered from their Pagan enemies, were\nenough to provoke the most passive tempers to some acts of hostility\nand resistance[109]. But every one knows, that they had recourse to no\narms, but those of the spirit: they took no advantage of distracted\ntimes, to raise commotions in behalf of the _new_ religion, or to\nsuppress the _old_ one: _a bruised reed did they not break, and\nsmoaking flax did they not quench_: yet with meekness, and patience,\nand suffering; by piety, by reason, by the secret influence of a divine\nblessing attending on these feeble efforts, the doctrine of the cross\ninsensibly gained ground, spread itself far and wide, and in the end\nbecame _victorious_ over all the rage and power and sophistry of an\nunbelieving world[110].\n\nThat this _victory_ hath not been, hitherto, so complete, as to answer\nthe promise of an _absolute universality_, we readily acknowledge; but\nare in no pain for the event[111]; as the same oracles, which have thus\nfar been verified, suppose the present condition of things; and, what\nis more, assure us of a time to come, when _the fulness of the Gentiles\nshall come in_.\n\nOne word more, and I have done. If it be now thought, that these\nTHREE prophecies\u2014_concerning the destruction of Jerusalem_\u2014_the\ndispersion of the Jews_\u2014and _the call of the Gentiles_\u2014have been\nclearly accomplished; and yet were of that nature, that no human\nforesight could deliver them, nor any probable conjuncture of human\naffairs account for the accomplishment of them, you will conclude that\nthey were truly divine, and that we do not abuse your credulity in\nalledging such prophecies, in proof of our holy religion. You will see\nand acknowledge that there _are_ prophecies, recorded in scripture,\n_concerning the Christian Church_; and that _these_ prophecies, in\nparticular, concerning it, have been remarkably fulfilled. Ye will,\ntherefore, the less wonder to find, that there are still _other_\nprophecies, relative to the kingdom of Christ, as administered in\nthis world; and will, of course, be disposed to consider, with less\nprejudice, what may further be said in support of them.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON VII.\n\nPROPHECIES CONCERNING ANTICHRIST.\n\n1 EP. JOHN ii. 18.\n\n\u2014_Ye have heared that Antichrist shall come_\u2014\n\n\nAmong the more remarkable prophecies concerning the Christian Church,\nthere are several, which describe the rise, progress, and downfal of\na certain Power, represented under various symbols or images, and\ndistinguished by many appellations; but more especially known by the\nname of ANTICHRIST.\n\nThese prophecies come now, in the order of this Lecture, to be\nconsidered. The subject is, in a high degree, curious and important;\nbut of no easy discussion: not so much on the account of any peculiar\ndifficulty in the prophecies themselves, as from the prejudice of party\nin _explaining_ them, and still more, from the general prejudice that\nlies against every _attempt_ to explain them.\n\nTo make my way through these obstructions, I shall begin with laying\nbefore you a clear and distinct state of the question itself, which is\nchiefly agitated by inquirers into these prophecies.\n\nIt is admitted, that many predictions in the Old and New Testament,\nparticularly in the book of Daniel, in St. Paul\u2019s Epistles, and in the\nRevelations of St. John, clearly point out a very extraordinary power,\nwhich was to manifest itself _in the latter times_, that is, in the\ntimes subsequent to the introduction of Christianity. The characters,\nby which this power (acknowledged by all under the name of Antichrist)\nis chiefly distinguished, are those of _Tyranny_[112], _Idolatry_, and\n_Intolerance_. And, to abridge our trouble in searching after this\n_three-headed_ monster, we are directed by the prophets to look for him\nwithin the boundaries of what is properly called, the Roman Empire, and\neven in the city of Rome itself.\n\nThus far there is no dispute. The only question is, To what Roman\npower, exhibiting those characters, the prophecies are to be applied.\nAnd even this question is reduced within narrow limits. For TWO Powers\nonly have subsisted in Rome, from the Christian \u00e6ra to the present\ntimes (within which period we are, again, allowed to expect the reign\nof Antichrist); the Roman Emperor, in the first place; and, afterwards,\nthe Roman Pontifs. So that, on the whole, the single point in debate\nis merely this, Whether Imperial, or Papal Rome, be that Antichristian\nPower, which the prophets foretold. The church of Rome holds, for\nobvious reasons, that the _Imperial_ power is the object of the\nprophecies: the Protestants have, on the contrary, their reasons for\nmaintaining, that _Papal_ Rome is that power, which the prophecies had\nin view, and in which alone they are truly and properly verified.\n\nThis, then, is the meaning of that famous inquiry concerning\nAntichrist: and I must desire you to keep your attention steadily fixed\non the question, as here stated; while I endeavour to furnish you with\nthe proper means of deciding upon it.\n\nThe obvious method of doing this, would be, To lay before you,\ndirectly, the prophecies themselves, and to examine them by the light\nof sober criticism, and authentic history. But, because it is no\nnew or difficult thing to misrepresent _facts_, and to misinterpret\n_scripture_, to pervert, in short, these two instruments of truth to\nany ends, which prejudice hath in view; and because I know how natural\nit is for you to suspect such management in the present case, where the\nzeal of party is supposed, on either side, to exclude, or over-power,\nthe love of truth; for _these reasons_, it may be convenient to take\na larger compass, and, by a previous historical deduction of this\ncontroversy, to let you see in what light it has been regarded, through\nthe several ages of the Christian Church.\n\nI. THE FIRST ACCOUNT, we meet with in scripture, of the power in\nquestion, I mean, under his proper name of _Antichrist_, is in the\nfirst epistle of St. John, from which the text is taken. The whole\npassage runs thus\u2014_Little children, it is the last time: And, as\nye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many\nAntichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time_.\n\nTo understand these words, we must call to mind what hath been already,\nmore than once, observed concerning the scriptural division of time\ninto two great portions, The FORMER, and LATTER times. By the _former_,\nis meant the times preceding the Christian \u00e6ra; by the _latter_, the\ntimes subsequent to it. Correspondent to this partition of time, is\nthe double advent of Christ, of which I before gave a distinct idea.\nHis _first_ advent was, when he came in the flesh, at Jerusalem: his\n_second_ advent to be understood of his coming in his kingdom, through\nall the ages of the Christian Church.\n\nBut though the _latter times_, in the general sense of scripture, be\nthus comprehensive, they are further subdivided into other constituent\nportions, in which some particular state of Christ\u2019s kingdom is\nadministered, and within which it is completed. In reference to this\nsubordinate division of time in the Christian dispensation, the\n_coming_ of Christ is, also, proportionably multiplied. He _comes_ in\neach division; that is, as oft as he thinks fit to interpose by any\nsignal act of his power and providence. The whole period, in which any\ndistinct state of his kingdom is carrying on, is likewise called _the\nlatter time_; and the concluding part of that period is distinguished\nby the name of the _last hour_: as if the whole of each period were\nconsidered as _one day_; and the close of each period, as the end, or\n_last hour_, of that day.\n\nThus, the time that elapsed from Christ\u2019s ascension to the destruction\nof Jerusalem, being one of the subdivisions, before mentioned, is\ncalled the _latter times_; and the eve of its destruction, is called\nthe _last hour_. He _was coming_ through the whole time: he _came_\nin the end of it. And the like use of these terms is to be made,\nin other instances. We are to apply them in the same manner to the\n_reign of Antichrist_\u2014_to the Millennium_\u2014to the _day of judgment_.\nEach of these states, into which the _latter times_, or the times of\nChristianity, are divided, is likewise spoken of under the idea of the\n_latter times_; and the season, in which each is drawing to an end, is\nthe _last hour_ of that state[113].\n\nThus much being premised, it is easy to give a just exposition of the\ntext. _Little children, it is the last time_, or _hour_\u2014that is, the\ndestruction of Jerusalem is at hand; as indeed it followed very soon\nafter the date of this Epistle. _And, as ye have heared that Antichrist\nshall come_\u2014that, in some future period, called the _last times_, an\nhostile power, which we know by the name of Antichrist, shall arise and\nprevail in the world, _even now_, we may see the commencement of that\npower; for, _there are many Antichrists_; many persons, now, appear in\nthe spirit of that future Antichrist, and deserve his name: _whereby_,\nindeed, _we know that it is the last hour_: for Christ himself had\nmade the appearance of false Christs and false prophets, that is, of\nAntichrists, to be one of the signs by which that _hour_ should be\ndistinguished[114].\n\nThe meaning of the whole passage, then, is clearly this: \u201cThat the\nappearance of _false Christs_ and _false Prophets_ (of which there were\nmany, according to our Lord\u2019s prediction, in St. John\u2019s time) indicated\nthe arrival of that _hour_, that was to be fatal to the Jewish state:\nand that they were, at the same time, the types and forerunners of a\nstill more dreadful, power, which should be fully revealed in _the\nlatter times_, in a future period, when that calamity was past.\u201d For\nthe truth of the assertion, That such a power should arise in the\nChristian church, he appeals to a tradition, then current among the\ndisciples: and his hated name of _Antichrist_ is here applied, by way\nof anticipation, to the false prophets of that time; as possessing much\nof his character, and acting with his spirit.\n\nHence we see the meaning of the word, _Antichrist_; which stands for\na person or power, actuated with a spirit opposite to that of Christ.\nAnd so indeed the Apostle explains himself, in another place of this\nvery Epistle. For, speaking of certain false teachers, who preached\nup a doctrine, contrary to that of the Gospel, he adds\u2014\u201cThis is\nthat _spirit_ of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should\ncome, and even now already is it in the world[115].\u201d And I lay the\ngreater stress on this observation, because the etymology of the word,\n_Antichrist_, makes it capable of two different meanings. For it may\neither signify one, who _assumes the place and office of Christ_,\nor one, who _maintains a direct enmity and opposition to him_[116].\nBut the _latter_, is the sense in which the Apostle useth this term;\nalthough it be true that, in the _former_ sense, it very well suits the\nBishop of Rome, who calls himself the _Vicar_ of Christ, as well as the\nsuccessor of St. Peter. Nor can there be any difficulty in fixing the\ncharge of Antichristianism, in the sense of _an enmity and opposition\nto Christ_, on the Roman Pontif (though I know how absurd the attempt\nseems to the writers on that side); for, to merit this charge, it is\nnot necessary that he should formally reject Christ, which undoubtedly\nhe does not, but that he should act in defiance to the true genius and\ncharacter of Christ\u2019s religion: a charge, which may be evidently made\ngood against him.\n\nIn short, as the word, _Christ_, is frequently used in the Apostolic\nwritings for the _doctrine_ of Christ; in which sense we are said\nto _put on Christ_, to _grow in Christ_, to _learn Christ_, and in\nother instances: So _Antichrist_, in the abstract, may be taken for a\ndoctrine subversive of the Christian; and when applied to a particular\nman, or body of men, it denotes _one_, who sets himself against the\n_spirit_ of that doctrine[117].\n\nIn this last sense, the word _Antichrist_ is clearly employed by St.\nJohn: and from his example, the word grew into general use in the\nChristian church; and is so to be understood, whenever mention is made\nof Antichrist by the primitive fathers, or any other ecclesiastical\nwriters.\n\nII. I am now to shew in what manner the prophecies concerning\n_Antichrist_, or a person or power, so called, and, though variously\ndescribed, always considered under the idea of an adversary to the true\ndoctrine of Christ, have been construed and applied by many eminent\nmembers of the Christian Church, in all ages.\n\n1. When the canon of scripture was formed, and new in the hands of the\nfaithful, the prophecies concerning Antichrist were too remarkable not\nto take their early attention. They accordingly cite these prophecies\nin their apologies and commentaries, or refer to them, very frequently.\nBut one thing is singular. Though Antichrist be every where spoken of\nin the prophecies as a persecuting power, and though the Christian\nchurch then was, and so continued to be for near three centuries, in\na state of persecution under the Roman emperors, yet this opprobrious\nname was not usually given to their persecutors. I do not say, that\nnone of the early Christian writers ever applied that character to the\nEmperors. Some few of them, in a fit of zeal and resentment, did[118].\nBut the most, and the ablest of the Fathers, were clearly of another\nopinion.\n\nIt may be thought, that they forbore this application of so odious a\nterm, out of respect to the government under which they lived, and\nfrom prudential considerations. These motives had, without doubt,\ntheir weight with them, and made them more cautious, than they would\notherwise have been, in interpreting the prophecies. But, if they had\nbeen at liberty to speak out, and declare their full sense, on the\nsubject, it is certain they would not, and could not, consistently with\ntheir avowed principles, apply the prophecies concerning Antichrist\nto the Roman Emperors. For they had learned from tradition, and from\nthe letter of the prophecies, that Antichrist was to be revealed in\nsome distant age; and they even collected from a remarkable passage in\none of St. Paul\u2019s Epistles (which will be considered hereafter) that\nthe removal of the Roman empire was to make way for his appearance.\nHence, they give it as a reason for their ardent prayers to Heaven for\nthe preservation of the empire, that the dreaded power of Antichrist\ncould not commence, so long as the Imperial sovereignty subsisted. And\nit is observable that, of those few writers, who were in different\nsentiments, the greater part conceived the time of his coming to be\n_remote_; and were even driven to the strange necessity of supposing\nthat Nero, the first persecuting Emperor, was miraculously kept alive,\nor would be raised up from the dead, in order to be revealed in a\nfuture age, as the Antichrist of the prophets, or at least as the\n_Precursor_ of Antichrist[119].\n\nIn short, the idea, which the early Christians, in general, formed\nof Antichrist, was that of a power, to be revealed in distant times,\nafter the dissolution of the Roman empire; of a power, to arise out of\nthe ruins of that empire. Not to multiply quotations, on a point which\nadmits no doubt, Jerom, the ablest of the ancient Fathers, and the most\nesteemed, shall speak for the rest. He says expressly, that such was\nthe idea of _all the ecclesiastical writers_, down to his time, as is\nhere represented[120].\n\nNow this circumstance ye will surely think not a little remarkable,\nthat they, who lived under the emperors, and felt the whole weight\nof their tyrannous persecution, should not apply the prophetic notes\nand characters of Antichrist, to _them_, if indeed the prophecies had\nbeen fairly capable of such application. This, I say, is exceedingly\nremarkable: for men are but too apt even to wrest the scriptures to a\nsense, which favours their own cause, or gratifies their passions; and\nto find a completion of prophecy in events, which fall out in their own\ndays and concern themselves (as we see from so many absurd applications\nof the Apocalypse, justly objected to certain Protestant writers);\nthough, when such events are past, and impartially considered, no such\naccomplishment of prophecy can be discerned in them.\n\nWhen the church of Rome, therefore, now pretends, that Antichrist is\nto be sought in Imperial and Pagan Rome, ye will naturally ask how it\ncame to pass, that the ancient fathers, who had the best opportunity of\nseeing the conformity of the prophecies with the transactions of their\ntimes, and were so much interested in those transactions, should yet\noverlook such conformity, if it had been real, and fairly marked out by\nthe prophecies, when interpreters of these days are so quick-sighted?\nAnd to this question, no just and satisfactory answer can be given, but\nthat, in the opinion of those fathers, the characters of Antichrist\nwere not sufficiently applicable to the Roman emperors; or, if they\nwere, that certain express clauses in the prophecies themselves forbade\nthat application of them. Either way, their conduct forms a strong\npresumption, that the Antichrist of the prophets was not, and could\nnot be, the Roman Emperor.\n\nI know indeed, that, when the empire became Christian, and factions\nsprang up in the church, the name of Antichrist, as a term of reproach,\nwas not unfrequently bestowed on such of the emperors as had made\nthemselves obnoxious to the orthodox party. But this flippancy of\nlanguage proves nothing but the passion of the men who indulged\nthemselves in it, unless it be, that this term of reproach was thought\nbetter suited to an ecclesiastic, than a civil power: for the Emperor,\nbeing now the head of the Christian church, his persecutions of\nthe faith were deemed the more _Antichristian_, as they especially\ndisgraced his _religious character_. And how natural this idea was,\nI mean the idea of _Antichrist_, as intended by the prophets of a\n_religious_, not civil power, we may learn from the history of the\nschisms, which afterwards distracted the church under the papacy; when\nthe Antipopes very liberally, and constantly branded each other with\nthe name of _Antichrist_: as if they had found a peculiar aptness\nin the prophetic language to express ecclesiastical tyranny and\nusurpation.\n\nBut, whatever use we may make of these facts, it is clear, on all\nhands, that the Roman Emperor, _as such_, was thought to have no\nconcern in the predictions concerning Antichrist; at least, that the\nmore intelligent Christian writers of the three first centuries had\nno idea of his having any such concern in them: while, yet, they held\nvery unanimously, that some future power was to arise in the church, in\nwhich those predictions would be completed.\n\nIII. This, in general, was the state of the controversy concerning\nAntichrist, till the down-fall of the Western empire; when the Bishop\nof Rome reared his head, and by degrees found means, amidst the ruins\nof that mighty power, to advance himself into the sovereignty of Rome,\nand, at length, of the Christian world: fixing his residence in the\nvery seat and throne of the C\u00e6sars. It remains to see, in what light\nthe reign of Antichrist was, thenceforth, considered by many eminent\nmembers of that church, which now called itself, and was, in a manner,\n_universal_. In other words, we are to inquire, now that the imperial\npower, which the fathers would not acknowledge to be Antichristian, had\ndeserted Rome, whether the papal power, which took its place on _the\nseven hills_, did not, in the opinion of sober men, fill up all the\nmeasures of the prophetic characters, and perfectly correspond to that\nidea.\n\n1. So early, as about the close of the sixth century, Gregory the\nfirst, or, the _Great_, as he is usually called, the most revered, and\nin some respects not undeservedly so, of all the Roman pontifs, in a\nfamous dispute with the Bishop of Constantinople, who had taken to\nhimself the title of _Oecumenical_, or Universal Bishop, objects to\nhim, the arrogance and presumption of this claim, and treats him, on\nthat account, as the fore-runner, at least, of Antichrist. His words\nare remarkable enough to be here quoted. _I affirm it confidently_,\nsays He, _that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop, or is desirous\nto be so called, demonstrates himself, by this pride and elation of\nheart, to be the fore-runner of Antichrist_[121]. And, again, _From\nthis presumption of his_ [in taking the name of Universal Bishop] _what\nelse can be collected, but that the times of Antichrist are now at\nhand_[122]?\n\nIt is to be observed of this Gregory, that he disclaimed, for himself,\nthe title of Universal Bishop, as well as refused it to his aspiring\nbrother of Constantinople. How consistently he did this, when at the\nsame time, he exercised an authority, which can only belong to that\nexalted character, it is not my business to inquire. Perhaps, he did\nnot advert to the consequence of his own actions: perhaps, like an able\nman, he meant to secure the thing, without troubling himself about the\nname: perhaps, he was jealous of a rival to this claim of catholic\nauthority, and would not permit the Bishop of Constantinople to\ndecorate himself with a title, which was likely to be favourable to the\npretensions of that see, and injurious to his own. Whatever the reasons\nof his conduct were, the _fact_ is, as I here represent it; and clearly\nshews that, in the judgment of this renowned Roman Bishop, Antichrist\nhad not yet been revealed in the person of the Roman Emperor; and if\never he were to be revealed, that not a civil, but ecclesiastical\ncharacter, agreed best with the prophetic descriptions of him[123].\n\n2. Pope Boniface III. had not, it seems, the scruples, whatever they\nwere, of his predecessor, Gregory. He readily accepted, or rather\nimportunately begged, this proud title of _Oecumenical Bishop_, from\nthe Emperor, Phocas; and transmitted it to all his successors. And now,\nit might be expected, that the Bishop of Rome would be Antichrist, in\nhis turn. But, such was the fortune of that see, or the devotion of the\nfaithful to it, that this charge was not presently brought against him:\nas if the spirit of dominion, which had so long possessed that city,\nwere a thing of course, and could not misbecome the Bishop of Rome,\nthough it looked so _Antichristian_ in him of Constantinople.\n\nOther reasons concurred to save the honour of the papal chair. Its\nauthority grew, every day, more absolute: and the tradition of the\nchurch (which had hitherto been the chief support of the doctrine\nconcerning Antichrist) gradually sunk under the apprehension of that\npower, to which alone it could, with any apparent propriety, be\napplied: while the ignorance of the times became such, that, except\nperhaps in the minds of some few retainers to the see of Rome, there\nwas scarce light enough left in the Christian world to point out\nthe meaning of the prophecies; if its gross superstition would have\notherwise permitted the application of them to the sacred person of the\nPope.\n\n3. Under the cover of all these advantages, _the Man of Sin_ had\na convenient time to display himself, and to grow up into that\nfull size and stature, in which he could no longer be overlooked,\nor mistaken, by those who had any knowledge of the prophecies, or\nskill in applying them. Accordingly we find that at the synod of\nRheims, held in the Xth century[124], Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans,\nappealed to the whole council, whether the Bishop of Rome were not\nthe Antichrist of the prophets; _sitting in the temple of God_; and\nperfectly corresponding to the marks, which St. Paul had given of\nhim. In particular, speaking of John the XVth, who then governed the\nchurch of Rome, he apostrophized the assembly in these words\u2014\u201cWhat\nthink ye, reverend Fathers, of this man, seated on a lofty throne, and\nshining in purple and gold? Whom do ye account him to be? Surely, if\ndestitute of charity, and puffed up with the pride of science only, He\nis ANTICHRIST, _sitting in the temple of God, and shewing himself that\nhe is God_[125].\u201d\n\n4. In the former part of the XIth century, Berengarius, a man of\nprincipal note in those days, and distinguished by his free writings\nconcerning the Eucharist, went so far as to call the church of\nRome, _the seat of Satan_ (which is but another apocalyptic name of\nAntichrist); and to know from what source he derived this language,\nwe need only reflect, that, in the catalogue of his works, we find a\ntreatise written by him expressly on the book of Revelations[126].\n\nAs this century advanced, the papal power rose to its height. And\nall the characters of Antichrist glared so strongly in the person\nof Hildebrand, who took the name of Gregory VIIth, that the Romish\nhistorian, Joannes Aventinus, speaks of it as a point, _in which the\ngenerality of fair, candid, and ingenuous writers, were agreed, That_\nTHEN _began the empire of Antichrist_[127].\n\n5. Pascal II, who had been brought up at the feet of Hildebrand, and\nsate upon the papal throne in the beginning of the XIIth century, was\ntreated with as little ceremony, as his master had been; particularly,\nby Fluentius, Bishop of Florence, and by the whole church of Liege[128].\n\nSt. Bernard, too, the most eminent person of that age, was so struck\nwith the marks of Antichristianism in the church of Rome (to which,\nhowever, in other respects, he was enough devoted) that he employed all\nthe thunder of his rhetoric (in which faculty he excelled) against its\ncorruptions; exclaiming, _that the ministers of Christ were become the\nservants of Antichrist; and that the beast of the Apocalypse had seated\nhimself in the chair of St. Peter_[129].\n\nBut this charge was now so general, and sounded so high, that it\nreached the ears of _others_, besides prelates, and churchmen.\nHistorians relate, that it made an impression on our military king,\nRichard I.; who, being at Messina in Sicily, in his way to the Holy\nLand, and hearing much of the learned Abbot Joachim of Calabria, (a\nman, famous in those times for his warm invectives against the Roman\nhierarchy;) had the curiosity to take a lecture from him on this\nsubject. His text was, _Antichrist_, and the _Apocalypse_; which he\nexplained in so pointed and forcible a manner, as was much to the\nsatisfaction, we are told, of his royal auditor[130].\n\n6. The first appearance of the people, called Waldenses or Albigenses,\nwas in this age; but, in the next, the XIIIth century, they prevailed\nto that degree, that Crusades and Inquisitions were thought little\nenough to be employed against them. We may know what the guilt of this\npeople was, when we understand from their books, and from the testimony\nof the great historian, Thuanus, that a leading principle of their\nheresy was, To treat the Pope as _Antichrist_; and the church of Rome,\nas _Babylon_; on the authority of the prophecies contained in the\nRevelation[131].\n\nOther[132] testimonies occur in the history of this age. But I must\nnot omit that of our famous historian, Matthew Paris; who hath taken\ncare to inform us, that his contemporary, Robert Grost\u00eate, Bishop of\nLincoln, the most considerable of all the English bishops, and equally\nrenowned for his affection to civil and religious liberty, was so much\nin earnest in fixing this charge on the see of Rome, that, as it had\nbeen the common theme of his meditations during life, so it occupied\nhis dying moments; the _Pope_, and _Antichrist_, being, as he tells us,\namong the last words of this zealous prelate[133].\n\n7. The XIVth century affords many authorities in point; among which the\nimmortal names of Dante[134] and Petrarch[135] are commonly cited.\nBut the example of our Wicklif, who adorned that age, is most to our\npurpose, and may excuse the mention of any other. This extraordinary\nman saw far into all the abuses of his time: but he had nothing more at\nheart, than to expose the _Antichristianism_ of the Roman Pontif[136].\n\n8. Still, as the times grew more enlightened, the controversy\nconcerning Antichrist became more general and important. The writings\nof Wicklif had great effects both at home, and abroad; and, with other\ncauses, contributed very much to the cultivation of free enquiry, and\nto the improvement of all useful knowledge, in the XVth century. The\nchurch of Rome was pushed vigorously on all sides; and, in her turn,\nomitted no means of self-defence. That the _worst_ were not scrupled,\nmay be seen by what passed in England at that time, as well as by the\nsanguinary and faithless proceedings at the council of Constance. Lord\nCobham, and the two Bohemian martyrs, were committed to the flames, for\nnothing so much, as for asserting the impious doctrine, \u2018That the Pope\nwas Antichrist.\u2019\n\n9. We now enter on the XVIth century; distinguished in the annals of\nmankind by that great event, The Reformation of long oppressed and much\nadulterated religion. The Christian world had slumbered in its chains,\nfor full ten ages. But Liberty came at last\u2014\n\n    _Libertas, qu\u00e6 sera tamen respexit_ INERTEM.\n\nThis important work was begun, and prosecuted, on the common principle,\nThat the bishop of Rome was Antichrist: and the great separation from\nthe church of Rome, was every where justified on the idea, That Rome\nwas the Babylon of the Revelation; and that Christians were bound by an\nexpress command in those prophecies, to _come out of her_ communion.\n\nLeo X. was thunder-struck with this cry, which resounded on all sides;\nand, in the last Lateran council, gave it in charge to all preachers,\nthat none of them should presume to call the Pope, Antichrist, or to\ntreat this obnoxious subject in their discourses to the people[137].\nBut his edict came too late. The notion had taken deep root in the\nminds of men; and the name of Antichrist, as applied to the Pope, was\ncurrent in all quarters.\n\n10. From this time to the present, _the charge of Antichristianism_\nagainst the church of Rome is to be regarded, not as the language of\nprivate men, or particular synods; but as the common voice of the whole\nProtestant world: so that it will be needless to bring down the history\nof it any lower.\n\nTHIS DEDUCTION, though made with all possible brevity, hath held us so\nlong, that I have but time for one or two short reflexions upon it.\n\n1. _First_, It may seem probable from the general prevalence of this\nopinion, in all the periods of the Christian church, that it must needs\nhave some solid ground in the scriptural prophecies: it not being\notherwise conceivable, that it should spread so far, and continue so\nlong; or that the more enlightened, as well as barbarous ages should\nconcur in the profession of it.\n\n2. _Secondly_, from the catalogue of illustrious names, here produced,\nand from the singular stress, which all Protestant churches to this\nday have ever laid on this principle, we may see the importance of the\ngeneral question. The papal divines have an evident reason for treating\nit with contempt. The men of thought and inquiry, who speculate within\nthe Roman communion, may be restrained by considerations of fear or\ndecency, from joining[138] in this invidious charge against the head\nof their church. But for any, that profess Christianity, and call\nthemselves Protestants, to make light of inquiries into the prophecies\nconcerning Antichrist, and to manifest a scorn of all attempts to apply\nthem in the way, in which they have so generally, and with such effect\nbeen applied, is a sort of conduct, which will not so readily find an\nexcuse, much less a justification.\n\n3. _Lastly_, whatever becomes of the _truth_, or _importance_ of the\ndoctrine, the _antiquity_ of it is not to be disputed. For we are\nauthorised to affirm, on the most certain grounds of history, that a\nRoman power, commonly called Antichrist, was expected to arise in _the\nlatter times_, by the primitive Christians; and that the Imperial, was\nnot deemed to be that power, so long as it subsisted. It is, further,\nunquestionable that not the Emperor, but the Bishop or Church of Rome,\nwas afterwards thought entitled to the name of Antichrist by many\npersons of that communion, for several successive centuries, previous\nto the \u00e6ra of the Reformation.\n\nThese facts should abate the wonder, at least, which some express at\nhearing the names of the _Pope_ and _Antichrist_ pronounced together.\nThey must surely convince every man, that this language, whatever\nfoundation it may, or may not have, in the prophecies, is not taken\nup without precedents and authorities; and that the notion, conveyed\nby it, is not a conceit of yesterday, which sprung out of recent\nprejudices, and novel interpretations. This, I say, is a conclusion\nwhich every man must draw from the premises, laid down in this\ndiscourse: and this, for the present, is the main use I would request\nyou to make of those premises.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON VIII.\n\nPREJUDICES AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF ANTICHRIST.\n\n1 EP. JOHN ii. 18.\n\n\u2014_Ye have heared that Antichrist shall come_\u2014\n\n\nOne of the principal prejudices against the doctrine of Antichrist,\nas understood and applied by Protestant divines, arises out of a\ncircumstance, which was just touched in the close of my last discourse,\nand is of importance enough to be now resumed and more particularly\nconsidered.\n\nI. It is well known that, when the Reformation was set on foot in the\nsixteenth century, this great work was every where justified and\nconducted on the general principle, \u201cThat the Pope, or at least the\nchurch of Rome, was Antichrist.\u201d\n\n\u201cNow men of sense, who have looked no farther into the subject, and yet\nremember, as they easily may, the bitterness, the policy, the fraud,\ntoo commonly observable in the conduct of religious (as of other)\nparties, easily fall into the suspicion, That this cry of Antichrist\nwas only an artifice of the time, or at least an extravagance of it;\nwhen the minds of men were intensely heated against each other, and\nwhen of course no arms would be refused, that might serve to annoy or\ndistress the enemy.\n\nIn these circumstances, it was natural enough, it will be said, for\nangry men to _see_ that in the prophecies which was not contained in\nthem; or for designing men to _feign_ that which they did not see; in\norder the more effectually to carry on the cause in which they had\nembarked, and to seduce the unwary multitude into their quarrel. In\nshort, the passions of the Reformed, it is readily presumed, had, some\nway or other, conjured up this spectre of Antichrist, as a convenient\nengine, by which they might either gratify their own spleen, or excite\nthat of the people; the prophecies all the while being no further\nconcerned in the question, than as they were wrested for these purposes\n(as they frequently have been, in like cases) from their true and\nproper meaning.\u201d\n\nTo remove this capital prejudice (which, more than any other, hath,\nperhaps, diverted serious men from giving a due attention to this\nargument) was the main purpose of the preceding discourse; in which\nit was clearly shewn from historical testimony, that the question\nconcerning Antichrist had its rise in the earliest times; that the\nprophecies concerning Antichrist, though imperfectly enough understood,\nand, it may be, passionately applied, had yet, been considered,\nvery generally, as referring to _some_ corrupt Christian and even\necclesiastical person or power; and that many eminent members of the\nChristian church had even applied those prophecies to the _same_ person\nor power, to which Protestants now apply them, and for the _same_ end,\nwhich Protestants have in view, when they apply them to such person or\npower, for many successive centuries, before the Reformation began.\nFrom all which it is undeniable, that the Reformers did not innovate in\nthe interpretation of the prophecies concerning Antichrist; and that\ntheir application of them to the see of Rome, was not a contrivance,\nwhich sprung out of the passionate resentments, or interested policies\nof that time.\n\nIt is true indeed (for the truth should not, and needs not be\nconcealed) that the Reformers were forward enough to lay hold on this\nreceived sense of the prophecies, and to make their utmost advantage of\nit; the account of which matter is, briefly, this: The Christian church\nhad now for many ages been held together in a close dependence on the\nchair of St. Peter; and to secure and perpetuate that dependence, was\nthe principal object and concern of the papal court. Various means\nwere employed for this purpose; but the most effectual was thought to\nbe, to inculcate in the strongest terms on the minds of Christians the\nabsolute necessity of communicating with the Bishop of Rome, as the\ncentre of unity, and, by divine appointment, the supreme visible head\nof the Christian world. Hence, to renounce in any degree the authority\nand jurisdiction of Rome, was deemed the most inexpiable of all sins.\nThe name of SCHISM was fastened upon it; a name, which was sounded\nhigher than that of Heresy itself, as implying in it the accumulated\nguilt of Apostacy, and Infidelity. The way of heaven was shut against\nall offenders of this sort; and, to make their condition as miserable,\nas it was hopeless, all the engines of persecution, such as racks,\nfires, gibbets, inquisitions, and even Crusades, had been employed\nagainst them: as was seen in the case of the Albigenses and others,\nwho, at different times, had attempted to withdraw themselves from the\npapal dominion.\n\nSuch was the state of things, when the bold spirit of Luther resolved,\nat all adventures, to break through this inveterate servitude[139], so\ndextrously imposed on the Christian world, under the pretence, and in\nthe name, of ecclesiastical union. Yet the peril of the attempt was\neasily foreseen, or was presently felt. And, therefore, the Reformers\n(to prevent the ill effects which the dreadful name of _Schism_ might\nhave on themselves and their cause, and to satisfy at once their own\nconsciences and those of their adherents) not only revived and enforced\nthe old charge of _Antichristianism_ against the church of Rome; but\nfurther insisted (on the authority of those prophecies which justified\nthe charge) that Christians were bound in conscience, by the most\nexpress command, to break all communion with her. The expedient, one\nsees, was well calculated to serve the purpose in hand: but still\nthe command was truly and pertinently alledged; for it exists in so\nmany words (however the blindness or the bigotry of former times had\noverlooked it) in the book of the _Revelations_[140]. So that whoever\nadmitted the _charge_ itself to be well founded, could not reject this\n_consequence_ of it, That Christ and Antichrist had no fellowship\nwith each other. And on this popular ground, chiefly, the Protestant\ncause, in those early times, was upheld; with no small advantage to the\npatrons of it; it being now clear, that the invidious imputation of\nSchism had lost its malignity in the general obligation, which lay upon\nChristians, to renounce all communion with the church of Rome.\n\nThis being the true account of that zeal, with which the doctrine of\nAntichrist was asserted in the days of Reformation, let us see how\nthe case stands at present; and whether any reasonable prejudice lies\nagainst the doctrine itself, from the uses, that were then so happily\nmade of it.\n\nIn the first place, The injunction, _to come out of her_, was, as I\nobserved, not forged by the Reformers; nor (admitting that church\nto be Antichristian) was it misrepresented by them. Every reader of\nthe prophecies must confess, that the command is clearly delivered,\nand that the sense of it is not mistaken. How serviceable soever,\ntherefore, this topic was to the cause of reformation, it is not, on\nthat account, to be the less esteemed by the just and candid inquirer.\n\nIn the next place, I will freely admit, that the dread, in which most\nmen, if not all men[141], of that time, were held, of incurring the\nimputation of Schism, was much greater, than the occasion required,\nand, upon the whole, a sort of panic terror. For, though a causeless\nseparation from the church would indeed have loaded the Reformers with\nmuch and real guilt, yet when the abuses of it had risen to that height\nas to reduce an honest man to the alternative, either of committing\nsin, or of leaving its communion, they might well have justified\nthemselves on the evident necessity of the thing, and had no need of\na positive command to authorize their separation. All this is, now,\nclearly seen; and if the first Reformers did not see thus much (as\nvery probably they did not) all that follows is, That the doctrine\nof Antichrist, from which that command derived its effect, was less\nnecessary to their cause, than they supposed it to be; not, that the\ndoctrine itself is without authority, or the command without obligation.\n\nLastly, I observe, that, though the _violences_ of the time might\nforce the Reformers to take shelter in this doctrine of Antichrist,\nand though the _prejudices_ of the time might induce them to take\nthe advantage, they did, of it; yet, neither of these considerations\naffords any just presumption against the doctrine, as it lies in\nscripture, and is enforced by us at this time out of it; because we\nargue, not from their authority, but from the prophecies themselves;\nwhich are much better understood by us, than they were by them; and\nare still maintained to speak the sense, which they put upon them, I\nmean with respect to the general application of them to the church of\nRome, though we have nothing to apprehend either from the power of that\nchurch, or from the prejudices of the people.\n\nLet no man, therefore, rashly conclude, from the free use made of this\ndoctrine by our old Reformers (and there is scarce one of them that has\nnot left behind him a tract or discourse on Antichrist) that it hath\nno better or other foundation, than in their interests or passions. A\nreasonable man sees, that it has no dependance at all upon them. That\nLuther, indeed, heated in the controversy with the church of Rome, and\nsmoaking, as I may say, from the recent blast of the papal thunders,\nshould cry out, ANTICHRIST[142], shall pass, if you will, for a sally\nof rage and desperation[143]. But that we, at this day, who revolve the\nprophecies at our ease, and are in little more dread of modern Rome,\nthan of ancient Babylon, should still find the resemblance so striking\nas to fall upon the same idea; and should even be driven against the\nstrong bias of prejudice (which with us, in England, for above a\ncentury past, has drawn the other way) to adopt the language of our\ngreat Reformer; this, I say, is a consideration of another sort, and\nwill not be put off so slightly.\n\nSTILL, there are other prejudices, which oppose themselves to this\ngreat Protestant principle, _That the Pope is Antichrist_; and these,\nit will not be beside the purpose of this Lecture to consider. It may,\nthen, be said,\n\nII. \u201cThat, although there be not the same evident necessity for\nbringing this odious charge against the Papacy, as there was formerly\nin the infancy of Reformation, yet obvious reasons are not wanting,\nwhich may possibly induce the Protestant churches of our times to\nrepeat and inforce it. So long as the separation is kept up, the\npartizans of the cause will not scruple to lay hold on every popular\ntopic, by which it may be promoted. But an _ill name_, is the readiest\nof all expedients, and generally the most effectual, for this service.\nAnd as _Heretic_ is the term in use, when the church of Rome would\ndiscredit the Reformation; so, _Antichrist_ serves just as well, in\nthe mouth of a Protestant, to disgrace the Catholic party. Hence, the\npeople are gratified in a low spite against the person of the Pope; the\nbetter sort are confirmed in their religious or politic aversion to the\nchurch of Rome; and Princes themselves are invited to come in aid of\nthe prophecies, by turning their arms and councils against a godless\nantichristian tyranny: and all this, to the ruin of public peace, and\nin defiance of Christian charity.\u201d\n\nWhen men declaim, instead of arguing, or, what is worse, when they\nargue from their suspicions only, it may not be easy to give them an\nanswer to their satisfaction. Otherwise, one might reply,\n\n_First_, That the question is not, what use has been, or may be, made\nof this doctrine concerning Antichrist; but whether there be reason to\nbelieve that such doctrine is really contained in sacred scripture. If\nthere be, it will become us to treat it with respect, how much soever\nit may have been misapplied, or perverted.\n\nIn the _next place_, one might observe that no man, who understood\nthe state of this controversy, ever applied the prophecies concerning\nAntichrist to the _person_ of the Pope, but in general to the church of\nRome, or rather to the Antichristian spirit, by which it is governed;\nor, if to the _Pope_, to him only as representing that society, of\nwhich he is the head; and so far only, as he acted in the spirit of it.\nAnd there is nothing strange or unusual in this use of the term. When\nHobbes wrote his famous book, called LEVIATHAN (a word, now at least,\nof almost as ill sound, as Antichrist itself) no man supposes, that\nhe meant to apply this character, exclusively, to the person of any\nprince, then living; but, in general, to _civil government_, according\nto the ideas he had formed of it. And this way of speaking, as I have\nbefore observed, is especially familiar to the sacred writers. Many\nof the Popes are said to have been, and, for any thing I know, _may_\nhave been, _Saints_, in their private morals: so that when we apply\nthe term, Antichrist, to them, we do not mean to stigmatize their\n_persons_, but merely to express the sense which the prophecies lead\nus to entertain of the communion, over which they preside; though\nthey may not exemplify in their own conduct, or not in any remarkable\ndegree, the avowed principles of that communion.\n\nConceive, therefore, with more respect of Protestant divines, when they\nexplain and vindicate the prophecies concerning Antichrist, than to\nsuppose, that they indulge in themselves, or would encourage in others,\n_a low spite against the person of the Roman Pontif_.\n\n_Thirdly_, It is to be observed, that, although this prophetic language\nmay tend to confirm Protestants _in a religious, or_, if you will,\n_politic aversion to the church of Rome_; yet it is not therefore to\nbe forborn, if the scriptures do, indeed, authorize the use of it;\nnor is there any hurt done, if the principles of that church be not\nmisrepresented; for then, such aversion becomes the wisdom and the\nduty of all Christians. Besides, this aversion proceeds no farther\nin well-informed Protestants, than to keep them at distance from the\nRomish communion, and to admonish others of their obligation to forsake\nit. And, if the members, above all, if the rulers, of that communion\nwould restrain _their_ zeal within the same bounds (though they would\nnot, we say, be equally justified in this zeal) neither public peace,\nnor Christian charity, would suffer by it.\n\n_Lastly_, it should be remembered, That, when the prophecies foretell\nthe downfall of Antichrist, and even go so far as to point out to us\nthe princes of that communion, as the destined instruments of such\ncatastrophe; yet neither is hereby any duty imposed on those princes\nto make war upon the Pope, nor any encouragement given to Protestants\nthemselves to concur in any such measures. For the prophets simply\npredict an _event_; and do not deliver in their prediction, or propose\nto deliver, _rules_ for our conduct. Our Saviour himself, speaking\nby the spirit, and in the language of prophecy, said\u2014_I come not to\nsend peace on earth, but a sword_. But will any man suppose that this\nprediction justifies, or was meant in any degree to justify, that state\nof things, which it describes, and which the author of it foresaw\nwould too certainly come to pass? Nor think, that the event predicted,\nI mean, _the fall of Antichrist_, will not take place, unless our\ninvectives, or hostile attempts, make way for it. If the prediction be\ndivine, there is ONE, who will see that it be accomplished. Princes and\nStates may have nothing less in view than to fulfill the prophecies\nof sacred Scripture: yet, when the appointed time is come, they will\ncertainly fulfill them, though they never thought _of coming in aid\nof the prophecies_\u2014though we should not encourage them in any such\npresumptuous design\u2014nay, though we should do our utmost, as it is our\nduty to do, to restrain vindictive and ill-advised men from turning\ntheir arms even against Antichrist himself, for the sake of religion.\n\nThis topic, I know, is much laboured by the advocates of the papal\ncause, in order to throw disgrace on Protestant writers, whom they\nconsider as so many incendiaries, wickedly attempting to spread the\nflames of war through Christian societies. There might be a time\nwhen, in the case of some few men, transported by passion, because\noutrageously oppressed, there was, perhaps, some colour for this\ncharge. But to persist in it, as they still do, only shews that they\nneither conceive with due reverence of divine prophecy, nor do justice\nto that spirit of toleration by which the Protestant churches, at least\nof our days, are so eminently distinguished.\n\nIII. \u201cA _third_ prejudice, which operates in the minds of many persons\nagainst the principle under consideration, arises from the disagreeing\nopinions of learned men concerning the sense and application of the\nprophecies; while not only the papal Divines, but many writers of note\neven among ourselves, have strenuously maintained that the church of\nRome is no way concerned in the predictions concerning Antichrist.\u201d\n\nTo this prejudice, I observe,\n\n1. That arguments from authority, in all cases where reason and good\nsense must finally decide, are very little to be regarded. Shew me the\nquestion in religion, or even in common morals, about which learned men\nhave not disagreed; nay, shew me a single text of scripture, though\never so plain and precise, which the perverseness or ingenuity of\ninterpreters has not drawn into different, and often contrary meanings.\nWhat then shall we conclude? That there is no truth in religion,\nno certainty in morals, no authority in sacred scripture? If such\nconclusions, as these, be carried to their utmost length, in what else\ncan they terminate, but absolute universal scepticism?\n\n2. I observe that this authority, after all, whatever weight we may,\nin the general, suppose it to have, is, in the present case, no great\nmatter; for it is, in effect, but the authority of ONE man, whose\neminent worth, however, and lustre of reputation, made it current with\nsome others.\n\nThe character of HUGO GROTIUS is well known. He is justly esteemed\namong the ablest and most learned men of an age, that abounded\nin ability and learning. Besides his other shining talents, his\nacquaintance with history was extensive; and his knowledge of\nscripture, profound. And yet, with two such requisites for unlocking\nthe true sense of the prophetic writings, this excellent man undertook\nto prove in form, _That the Pope was not Antichrist_.\n\nThe account of this mischance, is as extraordinary, as the mischance\nitself. The moral qualities of Grotius were still more admirable, than\nhis intellectual: and in these qualities, we shall find the true spring\nof his unhappy and misapplied pains on the subject before us.\n\nHe was in his own nature just, candid, benevolent, to a supreme degree;\nand the experience of an active turbulent life had but fortified him\nthe more in a love of these pacific virtues. He was, on principle, a\nsincere and zealous Christian; and consequently impressed with a due\nsense of that exalted charity, which is the characteristic of that\nreligion: but he had seen and felt much of the mischiefs, which proceed\nfrom theological quarrels: and thus every thing concurred to make him a\nfriend to peace, and, above all, to peace among Christians.\n\nAn union of the Catholic and Protestant churches seemed necessary\nto this end: and the apparent candour, whether real or affected,\nof some learned persons, whom he had long known and valued in the\nchurch of Rome, drew him into the belief, that such a project was not\nimpracticable. Henceforth, it became the ruling object of his life;\nand, permitting himself too easily to conclude, that the Protestant\ndoctrine of Antichrist was the sole, or principal obstruction to the\nunion desired, he bent all the efforts of his wit and learning to\ndiscredit and overthrow that doctrine.\n\nThus, was this virtuous man betrayed by the wisdom and equity of his\nown character; and I know not if the observation of the moral poet can\nbe so justly applied to any other\u2014\n\n    Insani sapiens nomen ferat, \u00e6quus iniqui,\n    Ultr\u00e0 qu\u00e0m satis est, virtutem si petat ipsam[144].\n\nThe issue of his general scheme was what might easily be foreseen: and\nof his _arguments_, I shall only say thus much, That the Romish writers\nthemselves, for whose use they might seem to be invented, though they\ncontinue to object his name to us, are too wise to venture the stress\nof their cause upon them.\n\nTo conclude this head of authority, let me just observe,\n\n3. In the last place, that, if any regard be due to it, the advantage\nwill clearly be on our side. For, though the name of Grotius made\nan impression on some Protestant interpreters of scripture, not\ninconsiderable for their parts and learning, yet, when the grounds of\nhis opinion came to be examined, the most and the ablest of them have\ngenerally declared against him: and among these, let it be no offence\nto the manes of this great[145] man, if we particularly mention TWO,\nand prefer even to his authority that of Newton and Clarke; the one,\nthe ablest philosopher, and the other, the coolest and most rational\ndivine, that any age has produced.\n\nIV. \u201cAnother, and _fourth_ prejudice may have been entertained on this\nsubject from observing that many curious persons, who have employed\nthemselves much and long in the study of the prophecies, especially of\nthose concerning Antichrist, have been led (on their authority, as they\npretend) to fix the time and other circumstances of great events, which\nyet have not fallen out agreeable to their expectations. Whence it is\ninferred, that no solid information can be derived from the prophecies,\nand that all our reasonings upon them are no better than fancy and\nconjecture.\u201d\n\nNow, though the indiscretion of these curious persons, who would needs\nprophecy when their business was only to interpret[146], be injurious\nenough to their own character, I do not see how it affects that of\nthe prophets; unless whatever may be abused (as every thing may) be\nanswerable for the abuses made of it. But to reply more directly to\nthis charge.\n\nThe ill success of men in explaining prophecies of events, not yet come\nto pass, can in no degree discredit those prophecies, unless it be\nessential to this sort of revelation to be so clearly proposed, as that\nit may and must be perfectly understood, before those events happen;\nthe contrary of which I have already shewn, in a preceding discourse.\nThe very idea of prophecy is that of _a light shining in a dark\nplace_: and a place is not _dark_, if we have light enough to discern\ndistinctly and fully every remote corner of it. But the thing speaks\nitself. For to what end is the prediction delivered in obscure and\nenigmatic terms, if the purpose of the inspirer was that the subject\nof the prediction should be immediately, and in all its circumstances,\nprecisely apprehended? Why, then, is any distinction made between\nProphecy, and History? The mode of writing clearly demonstrates, that\nsomething, for a time at least, was meant to be concealed from us: and\nthen, if men will attempt, out of season, to penetrate this mystery,\nwhat wonder if mistake be the fruit of their presumption?\n\nAgain: the _declared_ end of prophecy is, not that we may be enabled\nby it to foresee things before they come to pass, but _when_ they\ncome to pass, that we may acknowledge the divine author of the\nprophecy[147]. What dishonour, then, can it be to the prophet, that he\nis not perfectly understood, till we be expected to make use of his\ninformation? Nay, in the case before us, it would dishonour him, if\nhe was. For, of the prophecies concerning Antichrist we are expressly\ntold, that they are _shut up and sealed, till the time of the end_;\nthat is, till Time brings the key along with him. So that, if men\ncould open them, by their own wit and sagacity only, they would give\nthe lye to the prophet. And thus we see, that the very mistakes of\ninterpreters attempting prematurely to unfold the _sealed_ prophecies\nconcerning Antichrist, far from subverting, support the credit of\nthose prophecies[148].\n\nBut I have something more to say on this subject. Though we cannot see\nevery thing in the prophecies, which we are impatient to see, it is\nnot to be supposed that we can see nothing in them. If this were the\ncase, we should scarce regard them as prophecies at all; at least, we\nshould hardly be prevailed upon to read and consider them. For, it is\non the supposition that some _light_ is communicated to us, that we are\ndisposed, as well as required, to _take heed to it_. In short, if we\nsaw nothing, we should expect nothing: such prophecies would not engage\nour curiosity, or so much as take our attention. In one word, they\nwould be utterly lost upon us.\n\nThis seems to have been, in some measure, the case with regard to this\nvery book of the _Revelations_. The early Christians saw so little\nin this prophecy, that they were led by degrees to neglect the study\nof it. Otherwise, the little they did see, might have given them a\nglimpse, at least, of many things, that intimately concerned both their\nfaith and conduct.\n\nIt being then necessary, as I said, that prophecy should, from the\nfirst, convey some light to us, and time having now very much increased\nthat light, it follows, that men may excuseably employ themselves\nin studying and contemplating even unfulfilled prophecies. They may\nconjecture modestly of points which time has not yet revealed: but they\nshould, in no case, pronounce confidently, or decide dogmatically upon\nthem.\n\nIt seems therefore to be going too far, to pass an indiscriminate\ncensure on all those, who have proposed their thoughts on the sense\nof prophecies, not yet completed, though it be ever so clear that a\nwrong construction has been made of them. Nay, it is worth considering\nwhether they may not even have conjectured right, when they have\nbeen thought to mistake the most widely. I say this, chiefly, with\nregard to the _time_, which some writers have beforehand assigned for\nthe accomplishment of certain prophecies, and that, on principles\napparently contained in those prophecies; but so unhappily, as to draw\nmuch scorn and ridicule upon themselves.\n\nI explain myself by a famous instance. Nothing has been more censured\nin Protestant divines, than their temerity in fixing _the fall\nof Antichrist_; though there are certain data in the prophecies,\nfrom which very probable conclusions on that subject may be drawn.\nExperience, it is said, contradicts their calculation. But it is not\nconsidered, that the fall of Antichrist, is not _a single event_,\nto happen all at once; but _a state of things_, to continue through\na long tract of time, and to be gradually accomplished. Hence, the\ninterpretation of the prophecy might be rightly formed, though the\nexpectations of most men are disappointed.\n\nIt is visible, I suppose, that the papal power (if we agree to call\nthat, _Antichrist_) is now on the decline; whensoever that declension\nbegan, or how long soever it may be, before it will be finished. And\ntherefore interpreters may have aimed right, though they seemed to\nothers, and perhaps to themselves, to be mistaken.\n\nSuppose, the ruin of the Western Empire had been the subject of a\nprediction, and some had collected, beforehand, from the terms of\nthe prophecy, that it would happen at a _particular_ time; when yet\nnothing more, in fact, came to pass, than _the first irruption of\nthe barbarous nations_. Would it be certain that this collection was\ngroundless and ill made, because the empire subsisted in a good degree\nof vigour for some centuries after? Might it not be said, that the\nempire _was falling_[149] from that \u00e6ra, or perhaps before; though, in\nthe event, it _fell_ not, till its sovereignty was shaken by the rude\nhands of Attila, or rather, till it was laid flat by the well-directed\nforce of Theodoric?\n\nBut we have an instance in point, recorded in sacred scripture. It had\nbeen gathered from the old prophecies[150], that, _in the last times_,\n(that is, when the Messiah was come) _a new earth and new heavens\nshould be created_. The style is symbolical; but the meaning is, and\nwas so understood to be, that a new Law should be given to mankind and\nprevail over the whole world. This Law was accordingly promulged and\nbegan to prevail in the days of the Apostles. Yet there were some who\nsaid, _Where is the promise of his coming? for, since the fathers fell\nasleep, all things continue, as they were from the creation of the\nworld._ It was taken for granted, we see, that this great and glorious\nwork, equivalent to the production of a new world, would take place\nsuddenly and at once; which not being the case, it seemed to follow,\nthat the prophecies were false, or at least ill understood: when yet,\nsurely, they were then fulfilling under the eyes of these _scoffers_.\n\nIt will be considered, how far these hints may go towards rescuing\nsome respectable interpreters (for I speak only of such) from\nthat contempt, which has fallen upon them, and, from them, on the\nprophecies themselves, for some hazardous conclusions, or, (if you\nwill) predictions, formed and given out by them, concerning the reign\nand fall of Antichrist. My meaning, however, is not to make myself\nresponsible for these conclusions. They may not be rightly drawn\nfrom the premises, laid down; or the premises may be such, that the\nprecise date of those transactions cannot be determined from them, at\nleast, not, till the scene of prophecy be closed, or, in the prophetic\nlanguage, _till the mystery of God be finished_[151]. In the mean\ntime, it is not clear and undeniable that there is no ground at all\nfor such conjectures: or, if it were, it would only follow that they,\nwho made them, had been rash and indiscreet in commenting too minutely\nand confidently on prophecies unfulfilled; and it would be weak, as we\nhave seen, to contract a prejudice against the subject itself from the\nmistakes of such commentators.\n\nV. After all, the main and master prejudice, I doubt, is, that levity\nof mind which disposes too many to take their notions on this, and\nother subjects of moment, from certain polite and popular, it may be,\nbut frivolous and libertine writers: men, who have no religion, or not\nenough to venerate the prophetic scriptures; who have no knowledge, or\ncertainly not enough to understand them.\n\nBut with such cavillers, as these, I have no concern; this Lecture,\nand the subject of it, being addressed to men of another character,\nto fair, candid, sober, and enlightened inquirers, only: For so\nthe inspired person, who first announced these wonders concerning\nAntichrist, to mankind, expressly declares, or rather prophesies\u2014_None\nof the wicked shall understand: but_ THE WISE _shall understand_[152].\n\n\n\n\nSERMON IX.\n\nTHE PROPHETIC STYLE CONSIDERED.\n\nEZEKIEL xx. 49.\n\n\u2014_They say of me, Doth he not speak Parables?_\n\n\nIn recounting the various prejudices, which have diverted many persons\nfrom giving a due attention to the prophecies concerning Antichrist, I\nmay be thought to have overlooked ONE of the most considerable; which\nariseth from _the peculiar style, in which they are delivered_. But\nthis being a subject of larger compass, and nicer inquiry, than the\nrest, (in which, too, the credit of all the prophetic scriptures, as\nwell as those respecting Antichrist, is concerned) I have purposely\nreserved it for a distinct and separate examination.\n\nWITHOUT DOUBT, a plain man, brought up in our customs and notions, and\nunacquainted with theological studies, when he first turns himself\nto the contemplation of the Jewish and Christian prophecies, will be\nsurprised, perhaps disgusted, to find, that he understands little, or\nnothing of them. His _modesty_ may incline him to think, that such\nwritings are too mysterious for his comprehension: or, his _laziness\nand presumption_ may dispose him to reject them, at once, as perfectly\nunintelligible; to consider the language of them, as a jargon, to which\nno ideas are annexed; or, at least, as a kind of cypher, of so wild and\nfanatical a texture, that no clear and certain construction can be made\nof it.\n\nNow, this prejudice, whichever way it points, will be obviated, if it\ncan be shewn,\n\n1. That the prophetic style was of common and approved use, in the\ntimes when the prophecies were delivered, and among the people to whom\nthey were addressed.\n\nAnd\n\n2. That this style, how dark or fanciful soever it may appear, is yet\n_reducible to rule_; that is, is constructed on such principles, as\nmake it the subject of just criticism and reasonable interpretation;\nand, in particular, to us, at this day.\n\nFor a language is not _fanatical_, that is authorised by general\npractice; nor can it be deemed _unintelligible_, when it is capable of\nhaving its meaning ascertained.\n\nI. The proof of these two points will most conveniently be given\ntogether, in a deduction of the causes, which produced the character of\nthe prophetic style.\n\nThat character, I believe, is truly given by those who affirm, That\nthe style of the prophets was only the poetical, and highly figurative\nstyle of the Eastern nations. But if you go farther and ask, How it\ncame to pass, that the oriental poetry was so much more figurative\nthan ours, it may not be enough to say, as many others have done, that\nthis difference of character was owing to the influence of the sun,\nand to the superior heat and fervour, which it gave to an eastern\nimagination. For I know not whether there be reason to think, that the\nsun hath any such effect on the powers of the mind; or that the fancies\nof men are apter to catch, and blaze out in metaphor, within a warm\nclimate, than a cold one: a figurative cast of style being observable\nin the native poetry of all countries; and that, so far as appears from\nhistory and experience, in a pretty equal degree.\n\nBesides, if the fact were allowed, the answer would scarce be\nsufficient. For, as we shall presently see, the symbolic language of\nProphecy, is too consistent and uniform, hath too much of art and\nmethod in it, to be derived from the casual flights and sallies of\nthe imagination _only_, how powerfully soever you suppose it to have\noperated in the prophets.\n\nWe then must go much deeper for a true account of the emblematic and\nhighly coloured expression, which glares so strongly in the prophetic\nscriptures: and we shall find it, partly, in the nature of the human\nmind; and, partly, in the genius, indeed, of the oriental nations, and\nespecially of the Jews, but as fashioned, not by the influence of their\nclimate, but by the modes of their learning and institution.\n\nI must be as brief as possible, on a subject, which many learned\nwriters[153] have largely and fully discussed; and, as the reflexions\nI have to offer to you upon it, are chiefly taken from them, I may the\nrather bespeak your attention to what follows.\n\n1. First, then, let it be observed, that the original language of all\nnations is extremely imperfect. Their stock of words being small, they\nexplain themselves very much by _signs_, or representative actions:\nand their conceptions, in that early state of society, being gross and\nrude, the few words they have, are replete with material images, and\nso are what we call highly metaphorical; and this, not from choice\nor design, or even from any extraordinary warmth of fancy, but of\nnecessity, and from the very nature of things.\n\nSuch is the primitive character of all languages: and it continues long\nin all, because the figurative manner is thought ornamental, when it\nis no longer necessary; and because the necessity of it is only, if at\nall, removed by long use and habit in abstract speculation: a degree\nof refinement, to which the orientals, and the Jews especially, never\nattained. And therefore in their languages, very long\n\n    \u2014_Manserunt, hodieque manent vestigia ruris._\n\nThus far we may go in accounting for the figured style of the east,\nfrom general principles. But this is by no means the whole of the case.\nFor\n\n2. We are to reflect, that, before an alphabet was invented, and what\nwe call literary writing was formed into an art, men had no way to\nrecord their conceptions, or to convey them to others at a distance,\nbut by setting down the figures and shapes of such things, as were the\nobjects of their contemplation. Hence, the way of writing in _picture_,\nwas as universal, and almost as early, as the way of speaking in\n_metaphor_; and from the same reason, the necessity of the thing.\n\nIn process of time, and through many successive improvements, this\nrude and simple mode of _picture-writing_ was succeeded by that of\n_symbols_, or was enlarged at least, and enriched by it. By symbols,\nI mean certain representative marks, rather than express pictures;\nor if pictures, such as were at the same time _characters_, and,\nbesides presenting to the eye the resemblance of a particular object,\nsuggested a general idea to the mind. As, when a _horn_ was made to\ndenote _strength_, an _eye and scepter_, _majesty_, and in numberless\nsuch instances; where the picture was not drawn to express merely\nthe thing itself, but something else, which was, or was conceived\nto be, analogous to it. This more complex and ingenious form of\npicture-writing was much practised by the Egyptians, and is that which\nwe know by the name of HIEROGLYPHICS.\n\nIndeed, these _symbolic characters_ were likely, in a course of\nsuccessive refinements, to pass into characters by _institution_: and\nhave, in fact, undergone that change among the Chinese: and it might be\nexpected that _both_ would be laid aside by any people that should come\nto be acquainted with the far more convenient and expeditious method\nof alphabetic writing. But the event, in some instances, hath been\ndifferent. The Chinese adhere to their _characters_, though from their\nlate intercourse with the European nations, one cannot but suppose,\nthat the knowledge of _letters_ has been conveyed to them: and the\nEgyptians, through all the extent of their long subsisting and highly\npolished empire, retained their _hieroglyphics_, notwithstanding their\ninvention and use of an _alphabet_.\n\nTheir inducement to this practice might be, the pleasure they took\nin a mode of writing, which gratified their inventive curiosity in\nlooking into the natures and analogies of things; or, it might be a\nstrain of policy in them to secrete by this means, their more important\ndiscoveries from the vulgar; or, vanity might put them on raising the\nvalue of their knowledge by wrapping it up in a vehicle, so amusing at\nthe same time, and mysterious.\n\nWhat account soever be given of it, the fact is, that the Egyptians\ncultivated the hieroglyphic species of writing, with peculiar\ndiligence; while the antiquity, the splendor, the fame of that mighty\nkingdom excited a veneration for it, in the rest of the world. Hence it\ncame to pass, that the learning of those times, which was spread from\nEgypt, as from its center, took a strong tincture of the hieroglyphic\nspirit. The East was wholly infected by it; so that it became the pride\nof its wise men to try the reach of each other\u2019s capacity by questions\nconceived and proposed in this form. Even the Greeks, in much later\nages, caught the manner of symbolizing their conceptions from Egypt;\nand either drew their mythology from that quarter, or dressed it out in\nthe old Egyptian garb. But the Israelites, especially, who had their\nbreeding in that country, at the time when the hieroglyphic learning\nwas at its height, carried this treasure with them, among their other\n_spoils_, into the land of Canaan. And, though it be credible that\ntheir great Law-giver interdicted the use of hieroglyphic characters,\nyet the ideas of them were deeply imprinted on their minds, and came\nout, on every occasion, in those symbols and emblems, with which, under\nthe names of _riddles_, _parables_, and _dark sayings_, their writings\nare so curiously variegated and imbossed.\n\nThis then is the true and proper account of that peculiar style, which\nlooks so strangely, and to those, who do not advert to this original of\nit, perhaps so fantastically, in the writings of the prophets. And what\nmore natural, than that a mode of expression, which was so well known,\nso commonly practised, and so much revered; which was effected by the\nwittiest, nay, by the wisest men of those times; which was employed in\nthe theology of the Eastern world, in its poetry, its philosophy, and\nall the sublimer forms of composition; What wonder, I say, that this\ncustomary, this authorized, this admired strain of language should\nbe that in which the sacred writers conveyed their highest and most\nimportant revelations to mankind?\n\nNor let any man take offence at the condescension of the divine\nInspirer, as though he degraded himself, by his compliance with the\nhumours and fancies of those to whom his inspirations were addressed.\nFor let him reflect, that in what form of words soever it shall please\nGod to communicate himself to man, it must still be in a way, that\nimplies the utmost, indeed the same, condescension to our weaknesses\nand infirmities; nay, that immediate inspiration itself, though coming\nthrough no medium of language, is of necessity to be accommodated to\nour methods of perceiving and understanding, how imperfect soever they\nare.\n\nBesides, if external revelation be possible, it must be given in\nsome one mode of speech or writing, in preference to others. And,\nif we consider how ancient, how general, how widely diffused, this\nsymbolic style has been, and still is, in the world; how necessary it\nis to rude nations, and how taking with the most refined; how large\na proportion of the globe this practice had over-run before, and at\nthe time of writing the prophecies, and what vast regions of the South\nand East, not yet professing the faith, but hereafter, as we presume,\nto be enlightened by it, the same practice, at this day, overspreads;\nwhen we consider all this, we shall cease perhaps to admire, that the\nstyle in question was adopted, rather than any other; or we shall only\nadmire the divine goodness and wisdom of its Author, who had contrived\nbeforehand, in the very form of this revelation, what may possibly\nhelp to bring on and facilitate the reception of it. Certainly, it may\nbecome us, on such an occasion, to enlarge our ideas a little; and not\nto conclude hastily and peremptorily that, when a general blessing was\nintended by Providence, the mode of conveying it should be instituted\nsingly with an eye to our local notions and confined prejudices, and\nwith no regard to the more prevailing sentiments and expectations of\nmankind.\n\nIn the mean time, it is past a doubt that the hieroglyphic style was\npredominant in the ancient world; in Jud\u00e6a, particularly, from the\ntimes of Moses to the coming of Christ. There was indeed a degree of\nobscurity in it, so far at least as to furnish the Jews, who had no\nmind to listen to their Prophets, with a pretence of not understanding\nthem (as we see from the complaint brought against the prophet Ezekiel\nin the text, _Doth he not speak Parables?_) yet still, it cannot be\ndenied, _That this mode of writing was of common and approved use in\nthe ages, when the prophecies were delivered, and among the people, to\nwhom they were addressed_.\n\nOur FIRST proposition is then reasonably made out; and so much of\nthe SECOND, as affirms that the prophetic style _is constructed\non such principles as make it the subject of just criticism and\nrational interpretation_. For it was constructed, as we have seen, on\nthe symbolic principles of the hieroglyphics; which were not vague\nuncertain things; but fixed and constant analogies, determinable in\ntheir own nature, or from the steady use that was made of them. And a\nlanguage, formed on such principles, may be reasonably interpreted upon\nthem. So that what remains is only to shew, that there _are_ means, by\nwhich this abstruse language may become intelligible to us, at this day.\n\nII. That there are such means, you will easily collect, without\nrequiring me to come to a detail on so immense a subject, from the\nfollowing considerations.\n\n1. Some light may be expected to arise from the study of the prophecies\nthemselves. For the same symbols, or figures, recur frequently in\nthose writings: and, by comparing one passage with another; the darker\nprophecies with the more perspicuous; the unfulfilled, with such as\nhave been completed; and those which have their explanation annexed to\nthem, with those that have not; by this course of inquiry, I say, there\nis no doubt but some considerable progress may be made in fixing the\ntrue and proper meaning of this mysterious language.\n\n2. Very much of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, on which, as we have seen,\nthe prophetic style was fashioned, may be learned from many ancient\nrecords and monuments, still subsisting; and from innumerable hints and\npassages, scattered through the Greek antiquaries and historians, which\nhave been carefully collected and compared by learned men.\n\n3. The Pagan superstitions of every form and species, which were either\nderived from Egypt, or conducted on hieroglyphic notions, have been\nof singular use in commenting on the Jewish prophets. Their Omens,\nAugury, and Judicial Astrology seem to have proceeded on symbolic\nprinciples; the mystery being only this, That such objects, as in the\nhieroglyphic pictures, were made the symbols of certain ideas, were\nconsidered as omens of the things themselves. Thus, the figure of a\n_horse_, being the symbol of prosperity and success in arms, when a\n_head_ of this animal was found in laying the foundations of Carthage,\nthe Soothsayers concluded, that the character of that state would be\nwarlike, and its fortune prosperous: or, thus again, because the _sun_\nwas the common emblem of a King, or supreme governor in any state,\nan _eclipse_ of this luminary was thought to indicate the ruin, or\ndiminution, at least, of his power and fortune; and the superstition is\nnot quite extinct at this day[154].\n\nBut, of all the Pagan superstitions, that which is known by the name of\n_Oneirocritics_, or the art of interpreting dreams, is most directly to\nour purpose. There is a curious treatise on this subject, which bears\nthe name of Achmet, an Arabian writer; and another by Artemidorus,\nan Ephesian, who lived about the end of the first century[155]. In\nthe former of these collections (for both works are compiled out of\npreceding and very ancient writers) the manner of interpreting dreams,\naccording to the use of the Oriental nations, is delivered; as the\nrules, which the Gr\u00e6cian diviners followed, are deduced in the other.\nFor, light and frivolous as this art was, it is not to be supposed\nthat it was taken up at hazard, or could be conducted without rule;\nan arbitrary or capricious interpretation of dreams, considered as\na mode of divination, being too gross an insult on the common sense\nof mankind[156]. But the rules, by which both the Greek and Oriental\ndiviners justified their interpretations, appear to have been formed\non symbolic principles, that is, on the very same ideas of analogy, by\nwhich the Egyptian hieroglyphics (now grown venerable, and even sacred)\nwere explained. So that the prophetic style, which is all over painted\nwith hieroglyphic imagery, receives an evident illustration from these\ntwo works.\n\nI have said, that this superstition was _more immediately to our\npurpose, than any other_. For some of the more important prophecies are\ndelivered in the way of dreams; and therefore, without doubt, the rules\nfor interpreting the symbols presented to the mind of the prophet in\nthese inspired dreams, were the very same with those, that were laid\ndown in the Gentile Oneirocritics. The conclusion, I know, may appear\nbold and hazardous. But you will reflect that there is really nothing\nmore strange in applying this mode of interpretation to _dreams_,\nthan to any other species of prophecy; to visions, for instance, or\nparables, or even, in general, to any part of the prophetic style.\nThe compliance, on the part of the inspirer, is the same on every\nsupposition; and only shews that, when the Deity thinks fit to reveal\nhimself to men, he does it in a way that is suitable to their ideas and\napprehensions. Nor is any sanction, in the mean time, given, by this\naccommodation of himself, to the pagan practice of divining by dreams.\nFor, though the same symbols be interpreted in the same manner, yet the\n_prophecy_ doth not depend on the interpretation, but the inspiration\nof the dream. A casual dream, thus interpreted, is only a dream\nstill; the received sense of the symbols, represented in it, no way\ninferring the completion of it. But when the Almighty sends the dream,\nthe symbols are of another consideration, and not only signify, but\n_predict_, an event.\n\nNow, if men will mistake a _barely significant emblem_, for _a\nprophetic inspiration_, the fault is in themselves, and not in the use\nof the common emblems; which may be the vehicle of a true prophecy,\nthough craft or superstition take occasion from them to _divine\nlies_[157]. It follows, that the rules, which the ancient diviners\nobserved in explaining symbolic dreams, may be safely and justly\napplied to the interpretation of symbolic prophecies, and especially to\nsuch of them as were delivered in the form of dreams.\n\n4. It is lastly to be observed, that not only the Arabic and other\nOriental writers, but even the Greek and Latin poets, may contribute\nvery much to the exposition of the ancient prophets. For these poets\nabound in strong metaphors and glowing images, which were either copied\nfrom the symbolic language of the East, or invented on the same\nprinciples of analogy as prevailed in the Egyptian hieroglyphics. So\nthat many expressions, which seem dark and strange in the writings of\nthe Jewish prophets, may be clearly illustrated and familiarized to us,\neven from classic usage and example.\n\nAnd now from these several sources; that is, from _the scriptures\nthemselves_\u2014from the still _subsisting monuments of Egyptian\nhieroglyphics_\u2014from _the Gentile ceremonies and superstitions_\u2014and\nfrom _the greater works of genius and fancy, transmitted to us both\nfrom the Eastern and Western poets_\u2014such a vocabulary of the prophetic\nterms and symbols may be, nay hath been[158], drawn up, as serves to\ndetermine the sense of them in the same manner, as any common art or\nlanguage is explained by its own proper key, or dictionary; and there\nis, in truth, no more difficulty in fixing the import of the prophetic\nstyle, than of any other language or technical phraseology whatsoever.\n\nIII. But, if the case be so clear, you may now be tempted to ask, \u201cWhat\nthen becomes of the obscurity, in which the prophecies are said to be\ninvolved; and in particular, how comes it to pass, that they may not be\nas well explained, before the completion, as after it[159]; which yet\nis constantly denied by writers on this subject, and, even, by your own\nprinciples, cannot be supposed?\u201d\n\nTo this objection, I shall not reply by saying, That the style of\nthe prophets, though intelligible, yet requires much practice in the\ninterpreter to unfold its meaning; for that is the case of many other\narts and sciences, which yet are generally understood: nor, that the\nsymbolic terms are frequently capable of several senses, which must\nneeds perplex the interpretation; for there is no common language, in\nwhich the plainest words do not frequently admit the same difference of\nconstruction, which yet creates no great difficulty to those who attend\nclosely to the scope of a writer: I shall not therefore, I say, amuse\nyou with these evasive answers, but reply, directly to the purpose of\nyour inquiry, by observing,\n\n\u201cThat there are several methods, or, if you will, artifices, by which\nthe inspired writers, under the cover of a symbolic expression, and\nsometimes even without it, might effectually conceal their meaning,\nbefore the completion of a prophecy, though the language, in which they\nwrite, be clearly explicable on fixed and stated rules.\u201d\n\n1. When the prophecy is of remote events, the _subject_ is frequently\nnot announced, or announced only in general terms. Thus, an\n_earthquake_ is described\u2014a _mountain_ is said to be thrown down\u2014a\n_star_, to fall from heaven; and so in numberless other instances.\nNow, an earthquake, in hieroglyphic language, denotes a _revolution\nin government_; a mountain is the symbol of a _kingdom_, or _capital\ncity_; a star, of _a prince_, or _great man_: but of _what_ government,\nof _what_ kingdom, of _what_ prince, the prophet speaks, we are not\ntold, and are frequently unable to find out, till a full coincidence of\nall circumstances, in the event, discloses the secret.\n\n2. The prophetic terms are not only figurative, but sometimes, and\nin no common degree, hyperbolical (of which the reason will be given\nhereafter), so that nothing but the event can determine the true\nsize and value of them. This seems to have been the case of those\nprophecies in the Old Testament, which describe the tranquillity and\nfelicity of Christ\u2019s kingdom; and may possibly be the case of those\nprophecies in the New, which respect the Millennium.\n\n3. It being the genius of the prophetic style to be \u00e6nigmatical, this\ncast is sometimes purposely given to it, even when the expression is\nmost plain and direct. Thus Jeremiah prophesies of Zedekiah, king of\nJudah, _that he should be delivered into the hands of the king of\nBabylon, that his eyes should behold the eyes of the king of Babylon,\nand that he should go to Babylon_[160]. Ezekiel, prophesying of the\nsame prince, says, _that he should go to Babylon, but that he should\nnot see it, though he should die there_[161]. Now Josephus tells us,\nthat the apparent inconsistency of these two prophecies determined\nZedekiah to believe neither of them. Yet both were strictly and\npunctually fulfilled.\n\n4. Lastly, the chief difficulty of all lies in a circumstance, not much\nobserved by interpreters, and, from the nature of it, not _observable_,\ntill after the event; I mean, in _a mixed use of the plain and\nfigured style_: so that the prophetic descriptions are sometimes\n_literal_, even when they appear most figurative; and sometimes,\nagain, they are highly _figurative_, when they appear most plain.\nAn instance of _literal_ expression, under the mask of figurative,\noccurs in the prophet Nahum, who predicts the overthrow of Nineveh in\nthese words\u2014_With an over-running flood he will make an utter end\nof the place thereof_, [Nahum i. 8.] An _over-running flood_, is the\nhieroglyphic symbol of _desolation by a victorious enemy_: and in this\nhighly figurative sense, an interpreter of the prophecy would, in all\nlikelihood, understand the expression. But the event shewed the sense\nto be literal; that city being taken, as we know from history, by\nmeans of an _inundation_. Of _figurative_ expression, under the form\nof literal, take the following instance from a prophecy, of Christ\nhimself; who says to the Jews, _Destroy this temple, and I will raise\nit up in three days_, [John i. 19.] It was natural enough for the\nJews to understand our Lord as speaking of the _temple_ at Jerusalem;\nthe rather, as this term had not been, and, I think, could, not be,\napplied, to any person, before Jesus: to _Him_, it might be so applied;\nand we know that _he spake of the temple of his body_, [ver. 21.]\n\nThe same equivocal use was, sometimes, purposely made of _proverbial\nexpressions_, as learned men have observed[162].\n\nI omit many other causes of obscurity in the prophecies; such as\nthe seeming incredibility, sometimes, of the things predicted\u2014the\nundefined chronology and geography\u2014the intricacy of the method\u2014and\nmany other considerations. But you will collect from these brief\nhints, respecting the _expression_ only, that, though the symbolic\nlanguage be reducible to rule, and therefore, in the main, sufficiently\nintelligible, yet that there is room enough for the introduction of\nso much obscurity into the prophetic writings, as may answer the ends\nof the inspirer, and conceal the full meaning of them from the most\nsagacious interpreter, till it be revealed, in due time, by the event.\n\nOr, if it be thought that such difficulties as the event removes, are\nnot, in their own nature, invincible, before it happens, it is still\nto be considered, that the giver of the prophecy is, by supposition,\ndivine; and as he, therefore, foresaw, in framing the texture of it,\nthat such difficulties would, in fact, be invincible, they served\nthe purpose of a designed concealment just as well, as if, in nature,\nthey were. Whence the conclusion is still the same, That the prophetic\nstyle might be the cover of impenetrable obscurities in a prophecy,\nbefore its completion, and yet the terms of it be clearly explicable on\nestablished rules; the event only enabling the expositor more skilfully\nand properly to apply those rules.\n\nIV. To conclude this subject; It will now be acknowledged, that the\nsuspicions which have been taken up against the prophetic way of\nwriting, as if it were vague, illusory, or unintelligible, are utterly\nwithout foundation. The style of the prophets was the known, authorized\nstyle of their age and country, in all writings especially, of a\nsacred or solemn character; and is even yet in use with a great part\nof mankind. It further appears, that, as it was understood by those to\nwhom it was addressed, so the principles, on which it was formed, are\ndiscoverable by many obvious methods, and may be applied, with success,\nto the interpretation of it, at this day.\n\nThe prophetic style is, then, a _sober and reasonable_ mode\nof expression. But this is not all. We may, even, discern the\n_expediency_, I had almost said, the _necessity_, of this style,\nconsidered as the _medium_, or vehicle of prophetic inspiration.\n\nFor we have seen, that the scheme of scriptural prophecy extends\nthrough all time; and is so contrived as to adumbrate future and more\nillustrious events, in preceding and less important transactions:\na circumstance, which shews the harmony and connexion of the whole\nscheme, and is not imitable by any human art, or forethought\nwhatsoever. But now a figurative style is so proper to that end, that\nwe scarcely conceive how it could be accomplished by any other. For\nthus the expression conforms, at once, to the type, and antitype: it\nis, as it were, a robe of state, for the one; and only, the ordinary,\naccustomed dress of the other: as we may see from the prophecies,\nwhich _immediately_ respect the restoration of the Jews from their\nancient captivities, and, _ultimately_, their final triumphant return\nfrom their present dispersion\u2014from the prophecies concerning the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, which prefigure, at the same time, the day\nof judgment\u2014from those concerning the first coming of Christ, which,\nalso, set forth his reign with the saints on earth, and even the\nglories of his heavenly kingdom\u2014and in a multitude of other instances.\n\nThese successive, and so different, schemes of Providence could only\nbe signified _together_ in a mode of language, that contracted, or\nenlarged itself, as the occasion required. But such is the singular\nproperty of a symbolic style. For none but this, hath fold and drapery\nenough, if I may so speak, to invest the _greater_ subjects; while yet\n(so complying is the texture of this expression) it readily adapts\nitself to the _less considerable_, which it ennobles only, and not\ndisfigures. The difference is, that what is a metaphor in the former\ncase, becomes an hyperbole in the latter. And this double use of the\nsame symbol, is the true account of such figures as are thought most\nextravagant in the description of the prophets.\n\nWe see, then, in every view, how reasonable, how expedient, how divine,\nthe symbolic style is, in such writings as the prophetic. So that if\nany be disposed, in our days, to take up the complaint of the text,\nand to up-braid the prophets by asking, _Do they not speak Parables?_\nWe may now take courage to answer, Yes: but _parables_, which, as\ndark as they are accounted to be, may be well understood; and, what\nis more, _parables_, which are so expressed, as to carry an evidence\nin themselves that they _are_ what they assume to be, of divine\ninspiration.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON X.\n\nTHE STYLE AND METHOD OF THE APOCALYPSE.\n\nEZEKIEL xx. 49.\n\n\u2014_They say of me, Doth he not speak Parables?_\n\n\nAll the prophecies of the Old and New Testament are written in\n_parables_; that is, in highly figurative terms; which yet, on\nexamination, have appeared to be explicable on certain fixed and\nrational grounds of criticism.\n\nSo far, therefore, as any prejudice may have been entertained against\nthe prophecies concerning Antichrist, as if the language of them were\ntoo abstruse or fanciful to be understood, enough hath been already\nsaid to shew, that it is not well founded.\n\nIt must, however, be confessed, that the book of _Revelations_[163],\nwhich contains the most, and the chief prophecies on the subject of\nAntichrist, is of a deeper and more mysterious contrivance, than any\nother of the prophetic writings. Whence, our next step, in this\ninquiry, must be, To trace the CAUSES of that peculiar obscurity; and\nto suggest, as we go along, the MEANS, by which it hath been, or may\nbe, removed.\n\nThe _causes_, are to be sought in the STYLE, and the METHOD, of\nthat book. I say nothing of the _subject_; for, though the _things\npredicted_ may darken a prophecy, unfulfilled, the _event_ will shew\nwhat they are; and it is not necessary, that we should anxiously\ninquire into the meaning of a prophecy, till it be accomplished.\n\nI. _First_, then, the STYLE of the Revelations (for I mean not to\nconsider it, with regard to the Greek tongue, in which it is composed,\nor, to the Hebrew idiom, with which it is coloured) The _style_, I\nsay, being symbolical, like that of the other prophecies, must, in\ngeneral, be explained on the same principles, that is, must be equally\nintelligible, in both. Yet, if we attend nicely to the style of\nthis prophecy, some difference will be found, in _the choice of the\nsymbols_, and in _the continuity of the symbolic form_.\n\n1. To explain my meaning, on the first article, I must observe, That,\nthough the prophetic style abounds in _hieroglyphic_ symbols, properly\nso called, yet the Israelites, when they adopted that style, did not\nconfine themselves to the old Egyptian stock of symbols; but, working\non the same ground of analogy, superadded many others, which their\nown circumstances and observations suggested to them. Their divine\nritual, their civil customs, their marvellous history, and even the\nface and aspect of their country, afforded infinite materials for the\nconstruction of fresh symbols: and these, when they came into common\nuse, their prophets freely and largely employed. Thus, _incense_, from\nthe religious use of it in the Mosaical service, denotes _prayer_, or\n_mental adoration_[164]\u2014_to tread a wine-press_, from their custom\nof pressing grapes, signifies _destruction, attended with great\nslaughter_[165]\u2014_to give water in the wilderness_, in allusion to the\nmiraculous supply of that element, during the passage of the Israelites\nthrough the wilderness to the holy land, is the emblem of _unexpected\nrelief in distress_[166];\u2014and, to mention no more, a _forest_, such as\nLebanon, abounding in lofty cedars, represents a _great city, with its\nflourishing ranks of inhabitants_[167]; just as, a _mountain_, from\nthe situation of the Jewish temple on mount Moria, is made to stand for\nthe _Christian Church_[168].\n\nNow, though the symbols of this class be occasionally dispersed through\nthe old prophets, yet they are more frequent, and much thicker sown,\nin the Revelations: so that to a reader, not well versed in the Jewish\nstory and customs, this difference may add something to the obscurity\nof the book.\n\nIf you ask the _reason_ of this difference, it is plainly this. The\nscene of the apocalyptic visions is laid, not only in Jud\u00e6a, but in\nthe temple at Jerusalem; whence the imagery is, of course, taken. It\nwas natural for the writer to draw his allusions from Jewish objects,\nand especially from the ceremonial of the temple-service. Besides,\nthe declared scope of the prophecy being to predict the fortunes of\nthe Christian church, what so proper as to do this under the cover\nof Jewish ideas; the law itself, as we have before seen, and as St.\nPaul expressly tells us, having been so contrived, as to present the\n_shadow_ of that future dispensation?\n\nThis then (and for the reason assigned) is ONE distinguishing character\nof the Apocalyptic style. But the difficulty of interpretation, arising\nfrom it, cannot be considerable; or, if it be, may be overcome by an\nobvious method, by a careful study of the Jewish history and law.\n\n2. The OTHER mark of distinction, which I observed in the style of\nthis book, is the _continuity_ of the symbolic manner. Parables are\nfrequent, indeed, in the old prophets, but interspersed with many\npassages of history, and have very often their explanation annexed.\nThis great parable of St. John is, throughout, carried on in its own\nproper form, without any such interruption, and, except in _one_\ninstance[169], without any express interpretation of the parabolic\nterms.\n\nNow, the prophecy, no doubt, must be considerably obscured by\nthis circumstance. But then let it be considered, that we have\nproportionable _means_ of understanding it. For, if the symbols be\ncontinued, they are still but the _same_[170], as had been before in\nuse with the elder prophets; whose writings, therefore, are the proper\nand the certain key of the _Revelations_.\n\nFrom these distinctive characters, then, of the Apocalyptic style[171],\nnothing more can be inferred, than the necessity of studying _the Law,\nand the Prophets_, in order to understand the language of this last and\nmost mysterious revelation. And what is more natural, nay what can be\nthought more divine, than that, in a system, composed of two dependent\ndispensations, the study of the former should be made necessary to the\ncomprehension of the latter; and that the very uniformity of style and\ncolouring, in the two sets of prophecies, should admonish us of the\nintimate connexion, which each has with the other, to the end that we\nmight the better conceive the meaning, and fathom the depth, of the\ndivine councils in _both_?\n\nBut, without speculating further on the final purposes of this Judaical\nand Symbolical character, so strongly impressed on the Apocalypse,\nit must evidently appear that the difficulties of interpretation,\noccasioned by it, are not invincible; nay, that, to an attentive and\nrightly prepared interpreter, they will be scarce any difficulties at\nall[172].\n\nI proceed, then,\n\nII. To the SECOND, and more considerable cause of the obscurities,\nfound in this prophecy, the METHOD, in which it is composed.\n\nThe other prophecies have, doubtless, their difficulties, arising from\nthe abrupt manner, in which, agreeably to the Oriental genius, they are\ndelivered: But then, being short and unconnected with each other, the\napparent disorder of those prophecies, has rarely any sensible effect\nin preventing the right application of them. The case is different with\nthe prophecies, contained in this book. For, having been all delivered\nat once, and respecting a series of events, which were to come to pass\nsuccessively in the history of the Christian Church, it is reasonable\nto expect that some certain and determinable method should be observed\nin the delivery of them; and the true secret of that method, whatever\nit be, must be investigated, before we can, with success, apply any\nsingle prophecy to its proper subject.\n\nThe _first_, and most obvious expectation of a reader is, that the\nevents predicted in this prophecy should follow each other in the order\nof the prophecy itself, or that the series of the visions should mark\nout and determine the succession of the subjects, to which they relate.\nBut there is reason to think, on the face of the prophecy, that this\nmethod is not observed.\n\nA _second_ conclusion would, then, be hastily taken up, that there\nis no regular method at all in these visions, but that each is to be\napplied singly, and without any reference to the rest, to such events\nas it might be found, in some tolerable degree, to suit: And then\nit is plain, that fancy would have too much scope afforded her in\nthe interpretation of these visions, to produce any firm and settled\nconviction, that they were rightly and properly applied. Yet, as this\nidea of the Apocalypse would favour the laziness, the precipitancy, the\npresumption, and, very often, the malignity of the human mind, it is no\nwonder that it should be readily and eagerly embraced. And, in fact, it\nwas to this pre-conceived notion of a general disorder in the texture\nof these prophecies, that the little progress, which, for many ages,\nhad been made in the exposition of them, is chiefly to be ascribed.\n\nBut then, _lastly_, if neither the order of the prophecy be that of\nthe events, nor a total disorder in the construction of it can be\nreasonably allowed, the question is, By what _rules_ was it composed,\nand on what ideas of _method_ is it to be explained?\n\nThis question, as obvious as it seems, was not presently asked; and,\nwhen it was asked, not easily answered. The clear light, indeed, which\nthe Reformation had let in on some parts bf this prophecy, and a spirit\nof inquiry, which sprung up with the revival of Letters, excited a\ngeneral attention to this mysterious book. But, as each interpreter\nbrought his own hypothesis along with him, the perplexities of it\nwere not lessened, but increased by so many discordant schemes of\ninterpretation: And the issue of much elaborate inquiry was, that the\nbook itself was disgraced by the fruitless efforts of its commentators,\nand on the point of being given up, as utterly impenetrable, when\na sublime Genius arose, in the beginning of the last century, and\nsurprised the learned world with that great desideratum, _A Key to the\nRevelations_.\n\nThis extraordinary person was, JOSEPH MEDE: of whose character it may\nnot be improper to give a slight sketch, before I lay before you the\nsubstance of his discoveries.\n\nHE was a candid, sincere man; disinterested, and unambitious; of no\nfaction in religion or government (both which began in his time to be\noverrun with factions) but solely devoted to the love of truth, and to\nthe investigation of it. His learning was vast, but well chosen and\nwell digested; and his understanding, in no common degree, strong and\ncapacious.\n\nWith these qualities of the head and heart, he came to the study of\nthe prophecies, and especially of the Revelations: But, with so little\n_bigotry_ for the scheme of interpretation concerning Antichrist,\nthat, as he tells us himself, _he had even conceived some prejudice\nagainst it_[173]: And, what is stranger still in a man of his inventive\ngenius, with so little _enthusiasm_ in his temper for _any_ scheme of\ninterpretation whatsoever, that, when he had made his great discovery,\nhe was in no haste to publish it to the world[174]; and, when at length\nhe did this, he was still less in haste to apply it, that is, to shew\nits important use in explaining the Apocalyptic visions[175]. Cool,\ndeliberate, and severe, in forming his judgments, he was so far from\nbeing obsequious to the fancies of other men, that he was determined\nonly, by the last degree of evidence, to acquiesce in any conclusions\nof his own[176].\n\nIn short, with no _vanity_ to indulge, (for he was superior to this\nlast infirmity of ingenious men[177])\u2014with no _interest_ in view (for\nthe interest of Churchmen lay at that time, as he well understood, in a\ndifferent quarter[178])\u2014with no _spleen_ to gratify (for even neglect\nand solitude could not engender this unmanly vice in him[179])\u2014with\nno oblique purposes, I say, which so often mislead the pens of other\nwriters, but with the single, unmixed love of truth, he dedicated his\ngreat talents to the study of the prophetic Scriptures, and was able\nto unfold, in the MANNER I am now to represent to you, this mysterious\nprophecy of the Revelations.\n\nHe had observed, that the miscarriage of former interpreters had been\nowing, chiefly, to a vain desire of finding their own sense in this\nprophecy, rather than the sense of the prophet. Laying aside, then, all\nhypotheses whatsoever, he sate down to the book itself, and resolved\nto know nothing more of it, than what the frame and texture of its\ncomposition might clearly reveal to him. He considered the whole, as\na naked recital of facts, literally expressed; and not as a prophetic\nscheme, mystically represented. In this way of inquiry, he discerned,\nthat several parts of the history, whatever their secret and involved\nmeaning might be, were _homogeneous_, and _contemporary_; that is,\nthey related to the same subject, and were comprised within the same\nperiod; and this, though they were not connected in the order of the\nnarration, but lay dispersed in different quarters of it. These several\nsets of historical passages (or, of _Visions_, to speak in the language\nof the book itself) he carefully analyzed and compared; shewed, from\ncircumstances, not imagined, but found, in the history, their mutual\nrelation and correspondency; and established his conclusions, as he\nwent along, not in a loose way of popular conjecture, but in the\nstrictest forms of Geometric reasoning. The coincident histories, thus\nclassed and scrutinized, he distinguished by the name of SYNCHRONISMS;\nand gave them to the learned world, in this severe scientific form,\nwithout further comment or illustration, under the title of CLAVIS\nAPOCALYPTICA, or A KEY TO THE REVELATIONS.\n\nIn considering this discovery, which did so much honour to the profound\ngenius and accurate investigation of its author, one clearly perceives\nhow it serves to the end proposed.\n\n_First_, it appears that the order of the Visions is not that of the\nevents; in other words, that the prophecy is not to be so explained, as\nif the events, predicted in it, followed each other in the same train\nas the Visions. For the _facts_, which constitute the scheme or fable\nof the prophecy, literally and historically considered, do not succeed\nto each other in that train; therefore the _events_, whatever they may\nbe, which those facts adumbrate, most certainly cannot.\n\n_Secondly_, it appears what the true, or chronological order of the\nVisions, is; namely, that, which the nature and connexion of the things\ntransacted in them, points out and declares. So that, if the real time\nof any one Vision can be shewn, the relative time of the rest may be\neasily settled. For (to quote Mr. Mede\u2019s own words) _such Visions\nas contemporate with that already ascertained, are of course to be\napplied to the same times; while such as, in the order of the story,\nprecede that Vision, are to be referred to preceding events, and those,\nwhich follow it, are in like manner to be explained of subsequent\ntransactions_[180].\n\nBy this means, the whole plan or method of the Apocalypse will be laid\ndown. The several synchronical prophecies will thus fall in their\nproper places; and there will be no doubt of the relative situation,\nwhich each holds in the general system.\n\n_Thirdly_, as we now see the true order of the prophecies (though for\nthe wisest reasons, no doubt, the order, in which they are delivered,\nbe sometimes different) so it is to be observed, that the knowledge\nof this order is a great restraint on the fancy of an expositor; who\nis not now at liberty to apply the prophecies to events of any time,\nto which they appear to suit, but to events only falling within that\ntime, to which they belong in the course of this pre-determined method.\nAnd if to this restriction, which of itself is considerable, we add\n_another_, which arises from the necessity of applying, not one, but\nmany prophecies (which are, thus, shewn to synchronize with each other)\nto the _same_ time, we can hardly conceive how an interpretation should\nkeep clear of these impediments, and make its way through so many\ninterfering checks, unless it be the _true_ one. Just as when a Lock\n(to take the author\u2019s allusion) is composed of many, and intricate\nwards, the _Key_, that turns easily within them, and opens the Lock,\ncan only be that which properly belongs to it.\n\nAfter all, it may be difficult, I know, to convey a distinct idea\nof the uses, to which this synchronal method serves, to those who\nhave not read, and even studied, Mr. Mede\u2019s work. But the sum of the\nmatter is this, That the order of the events and of the Visions is\n_not_ the same\u2014that the _true_ order of the events, is to be sought\nin certain characters, not fancied at pleasure, but inserted, in the\nVisions themselves\u2014and, lastly, that the whole book of the Revelations\nbeing thus resolvable into a particular determinate order, in which\nthe several sets of synchronal prophecies regularly succeed to each\nother, no exposition of this book can be admitted, that does not refer\nevery single prophecy to its true place in the system, and provide at\nthe same time that no violence be done to any other prophecies, which\nsynchronize with it.\n\nAnd thus much concerning the TRUE ORDER of the Apocalypse; deduced,\nyou see, from no precarious hypothetic reasonings, but from notes and\ncharacters, inclosed in that book; that is, from intrinsic arguments,\nwhich have their evidence in themselves, and conclude alike on every\nsupposition.\n\nIf we would know more distinctly what the EXTERIOR FORM of it is; and\nhow it comes to differ so widely from the plan of a chronological\narrangement; here, too, our sagacious expositor will give us\nsatisfaction. For, in bringing together and comparing his synchronisms,\nhe found (what had escaped the attention of all others) that the main\nbody of the prophecy is made up of TWO[181] great parts; which are,\nalso, synchronical; so that, setting out from the same goal, and\nmeasuring the same space, they both concur in the same end: but with\nthis difference, that the _former_ division more immediately regards\nthe affairs of the _Empire_; the _latter_, those of the _Church_.\n\nStill, this is not all. Our attentive and penetrating commentator\nfurther discovered, That the two great component parts of this\nprophecy, though distinct, are very artificially connected, and shewn\nto harmonize throughout with each other, by making the same concluding\nevent[182], once told, the catastrophe of both. For the _former_ part\nis purposely, and with express warning given[183], left unfinished,\ntill a summary deduction of the _latter_ part down to the same point\nof time[184], (by way of prelude to the more extended visions of this\nlast part, which follow to the end of the book, and to signify, that\nboth parts are contemporary) furnished the occasion of shutting up the\ntwo prophecies together in one common term: which, however, had the\nappearance of being misplaced, till the detection of this singular\ncontrivance, by means of the synchronisms, pointed out the use and end\nof the present disposition[185].\n\n_Another_ cause of the seeming perplexity in which this Prophecy is\ninvolved, is, That, it being expedient to treat the same subject in\ndifferent respects, and to give different views of it, according as\ntwo sets of men, the true worshipers and the false, were affected by\nthe fortunes of the Christian Church, this shifting and opposite face\nof things could not be exhibited together; but was to be set forth\nin several and successive, though contemporary, visions. Hence, the\nprophecy is thought to proceed, when, in fact, it stands still, and\nonly presents another prospect of the same transactions.\n\nBut I enter no farther into the mysterious contexture of this book;\nthrough which, however, the clue of the synchronisms, if well pursued,\nwould safely conduct us. It is enough to my purpose to have shewn, That\nas the _Language_ of the Revelations is intelligible, so the _Method_\nis not involved in such intricacies, but that, in general, a regular, a\nconsistent, and, what is more, a _true_[186] conception may be formed\nof it. Whence no sober man needs be discouraged from reading this\nbook; or will be in danger, I think, of losing either his wits, or his\nreputation, in the study of it. For what should hinder a book, though\nof prophecies, from being understood, when its _method_ may be clearly\ndefined, and its _language decyphered_? Provided always, that we only\ninterpret a prophecy by the event, and do not take upon us to determine\nthe event by a premature construction of the prophecy.\n\nWith this Apocalyptic key then (of which so much has been said), this\n_key of knowledge_, in my hands, it may, now, be expected that I should\nopen this _dark parable_ of the Revelation, by applying so much of it,\nat least, as respects Antichrist, to Apostate Papal Rome. But, besides\nthat there would not, in what remains of this course, be room enough\nfor a detailed account of the prophecies, _other reasons_ restrain\nme from entering immediately on a task, not less easy perhaps, than\namusing. For Interpreters, I think, have generally been too much in\nhaste to apply the prophecies, before they had sufficiently prepared\nthe way for their application: So that, leaving many doubts unresolved,\nwhich men of thought and inquiry are apt to entertain on this subject,\nor not laying before them all the reasons and inducements, which should\nengage their attention to it, their clearest expositions are not\nreceived, and possibly not considered.\n\nWith regard, then, to the prophecies, concerning Antichrist, though\nthe chief obstructions in our way seem fairly removed, and it be now\nevident that there _are_ certain grounds, on which the most abstruse\nof them may be reasonably interpreted, yet, because the application\nof them is a work of time and industry, many persons, before they\nundertake it, may desire to know, What GENERAL ARGUMENTS there are,\nwhich may assure them, beforehand, that their labour will not be\nmisemployed, and that Papal Rome is, in fact, concerned in the tenour\nof these prophecies: And, when this demand has been made, they may\nfurther wish to be informed, To what ENDS OR USES this whole inquiry\nserves; of importance enough, I mean, to encourage and reward their\nvigorous prosecution of it?\n\nThese desires and expectations are apparently not unreasonable: And to\nsatisfy them, in the best manner I can, will be the scope and purpose\nof the two following Lectures.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XI.\n\nPROPHETIC CHARACTERS OF ANTICHRIST.\n\nLUKE xii. 56.\n\n\u2014_How is it, that ye do not discern this time?_\n\n\nSo much having been said on the _manner_, in which the prophecies,\nrespecting Antichrist, may be interpreted; I imagine that now, at\nlength, ye are disposed to ask, On what GENERAL GROUNDS we affirm, that\nthe Church of Rome is actually concerned in them.\n\nTo resolve this question, it will be sufficient to set before you, in\nfew words, some of the more obvious _notes_, or _characters_, by which\nAntichrist is marked out in the prophecies: such, and so many of them,\nas may convince you, that they are fairly applicable to the Church\nof Rome; and that, taken together, they cannot well admit any other\napplication.\n\nOf these prophetic characters,\n\nI. The FIRST, I shall mention, is, _That we are to look for Antichrist\nwithin the proper limits of the Roman empire_.\n\nOn this head, there is no controversy among those who acknowledge the\nauthority of the prophet Daniel, and can be none: For that prophet, in\nhis famous vision of the four kingdoms, says expressly, that, _among_\nthe ten kingdoms into which the fourth, or Roman, shall be divided,\nANOTHER _shall arise_[187]; that is, as all interpreters agree, the\nkingdom of Antichrist. So that this power, whatever it be, must have\nits birth and seat within the compass of the ten kingdoms, that is,\nof the Roman empire, when, in some future time from the giving of\nDaniel\u2019s prophecy, it should be so divided.\n\nBut, to fix the station of the Antichristian power more precisely, it\nis to be observed, that, as the four kingdoms of Daniel, considered in\nsuccession to each other, form a _prophetic chronology_[188]; so in\nanother view, they form a _prophetic geography_[189], being considered,\nin the eye of prophecy, as _co-existent_, as still _alive_, and\nsubsisting together, when the dominion of all, but the last, was taken\naway[190].\n\nIn consequence of this idea, which Daniel gives us of his four\nkingdoms, so much only is to be reckoned into the description of each\nkingdom, as is peculiar to each; the remainder being part of some other\nkingdom, still supposed to be in being, to which it properly belongs.\nThus, the SECOND, or Persian kingdom, does not take in the nations of\nChald\u00e6a and Assyria, which make the body of the _first_ kingdom; nor\nthe THIRD, or Gr\u00e6cian kingdom, the countries of Media and Persia, being\nthe body of the _second_. In like manner, the FOURTH, or Roman kingdom,\ndoes not, in the contemplation of the prophet, comprehend those\nprovinces, which make the body of the _third_, or Gr\u00e6cian kingdom, but\nsuch only as constitute its own body, that is, the provinces on this\nside of Greece: where, therefore, we are to look for the _eleventh_, or\nAntichristian kingdom, as being to start up _among_ the ten, into which\nthe Roman kingdom should be divided.\n\nWe see, then, that, as Antichrist was to arise within the Roman\nkingdom, so his station is farther limited to the European part of that\nkingdom, or to the _Western empire_, properly so called.\n\nThis observation (which is not mine, but Sir Isaac Newton\u2019s) is the\nbetter worth making, because, in fact, the papal sovereignty never\nextended farther than the Western provinces; at least, could never gain\na firm and permanent footing in the countries, which lie East of the\nMediterranean sea. But, whether you admit this interpretation, or not,\nit is still clear that Antichrist was to arise somewhere within the\nlimits of the Roman empire. In what _part_ of that empire he was to\nmake his appearance, we certainly gather from\n\nII. A SECOND prophetical note or character of this power, which is,\n_That his seat and throne was to be the city of Rome itself_.\n\nThe prophet Daniel acquaints us only that the power we call\nAntichristian, would spring up from _among_ the ruins of the fourth,\nor Roman kingdom: But St. John, in the _Revelations_, fixes his\nresidence in the _capital city_ of that kingdom. For, when, in one of\nhis visions, he had been shewn a portentous _beast with seven heads and\nten horns, and a woman arrayed in purple_, riding upon him, an Angel\nis made to interpret this symbolic vision in the following words\u2014_The\nseven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth\u2014and the\nten horns, which thou sawest, are ten kings\u2014and the woman, which\nthou sawest, is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the\nearth_[191].\n\nWords cannot be more determinate, than these. The _woman_, that rides\nthis BEAST, that is, the fourth empire, in its last state of _ten\nhorns_, or divided into ten kingdoms, is that Antichristian power, of\nwhich we are now inquiring. She is seated on _seven hills_, nay, she is\n_that great city, which reigneth_ [that is, in St. John\u2019s time which\n_reigned_] over the _kingdoms of the earth_. Rome, then, is the throne\nof Antichrist, or is that city, which shall one day be Antichristian.\nThere is no possibility of evading the force of these terms.\n\nIt hath been said, that Constantinople, too, was situated on seven\nhills. It may be so: But Constantinople did not, in the time of this\nvision, _reign over the kings of the earth_. Besides, if its _dominion_\nhad not been mentioned, _the city on seven hills_ is so characteristic\nof Rome, that the name itself could not have pointed it out more\nplainly: As must be evident to all those, who recollect, what the Latin\nwriters have said on this subject.\n\nThe\u2014_septem domini montes_\u2014of one[192] poet is well known; and seems\nthe abridgement of a still more famous line in another[193]\u2014\n\n    _Septem urbs alta jugis, toto qu\u00e6 pr\u00e6sidet orbi_:\n\nTo which, St. John\u2019s idea of a _woman, seated on seven hills, and\nreigning over the kings of the earth_, so exactly corresponds, that one\nsees no difference between the poet and the prophet; except that the\n_latter_ personifies his idea, as the genius of the prophetic style\nrequired.\n\nBut a passage in Virgil is so much to our purpose, that it merits a\npeculiar attention. This poet, in the most finished of his works, had\nbeen celebrating the praises of a country life, which he makes the\nsource and origin of the Roman greatness.\n\n    _Hanc_ olim veteres vitam coluere Sabini;\n    _Hanc_ Remus et frater: _sic_ fortis Etruria crevit:\n    Scilicet et rerum facta est pulcherrima Roma[194].\n\nThe encomium, we see, is made with that gradual pomp, which is\nfamiliar to Virgil. And the last line (from its majestic simplicity,\nthe noblest, perhaps, in all his writings) one would naturally expect\nshould close the description. Yet he adds, to the surprize, and, I\nbelieve, to the disappointment of most readers,\n\n    _Septemque una sibi muro circumdedit arces_.\n\nHad we found this passage in any other of the Latin poets, we should\nhave been apt to question the judgment of the writer; and to suspect,\nthat, in attempting to rise upon himself, he had fallen, unawares, into\nan evident anti-climax. But the correct elegance of Virgil\u2019s manner,\nand his singular talent in working up an image, by just degrees, to the\nprecise point of perfection, may satisfy us, that he had his reason\nfor going on, where we might expect him to stop; which reason can\nbe no other, than that the _seven hills_ were necessary to complete\nhis description of the imperial city[195]. To an ancient Roman, the\ncircumstance of its _situation_ was, of all others, the most august and\ncharacteristic; and Rome itself was not Rome, till it was contemplated\nunder this idea.\n\nThere was ground enough, then, for saying, \u201cthat the _name_ of Rome\ncould not have pointed out the city _more plainly_.\u201d But I go farther,\nand take upon me to assert, That the _periphrasis_ is even more\nprecise, and less equivocal, than the _proper name_ would have been,\nif inserted in the prophecy. For _Rome_, so called, might have stood,\nlike Sodom, or Babylon, simply for an idolatrous City. But the city,\n_seated on seven hills_, and _reigning over the earth_, is the city of\nRome itself, and excludes, by the peculiarity of these attributes, any\nother application.\n\nNor is it any objection to the remark, now made, that this city,\nwhatever it be, is described by _another_ circumstance, not peculiar to\nRome, indeed scarce applicable to it, I mean that of its being _seated\non many waters_[196]. For these _waters_ are not given as a mark of\nRome\u2019s _natural_, but _political_ situation: as the prophetic style\nmight lead one to expect, if the sacred writer had not taken care to\nprevent all mistake by assuring us, in so many words, That _the waters,\nwhere the whore sitteth, are_ PEOPLES, AND MULTITUDES, AND NATIONS, AND\nTONGUES[197].\n\nIf it be, further, said, \u201cThat the _seven hills_ may, likewise, admit\na similar construction from the frequent use of _hills_, as emblems\nof _power_, in hieroglyphic writing, and therefore in prophetic\ndescription,\u201d the remark is very just: but then, unluckily, there is\nno such explanation of the _seven hills_, as we have of the _waters_,\nfrom the prophet himself; while yet it could not escape him, that\nsuch explanation was more than commonly necessary in this case, to\nprevent the reader from applying the _seven hills_ to the best-known\ncity in the world, then subsisting in all its glory, and universally\nacknowledged by this distinctive character of its situation.\n\nShould it, lastly, be alledged, \u201cThat the explanation is subjoined to\nthe figure, for that the prophet adds immediately in the following\nverse\u2014_and there are seven kings_\u2014meaning, that the _seven hills_,\njust mentioned, were to be taken as emblems only of _seven kings_,\u201d\nI reply, that the _seven hills_, in the figurative sense of the\nterm, _hills_, naturally suggested, and elegantly introduce, the\n_seven kings_; but that the _former_, nevertheless, are clearly to be\ndistinguished from the _latter_. For it is not said\u2014_and the seven\nhills are seven kings_\u2014as it was before said\u2014_the seven heads are\nseven hills_\u2014but\u2014AND _there are seven kings_\u2014plainly advancing a\nstep further in the prophecy, and pointing out a new characteristic\ndistinction of the seven-hilled city, arising from the different forms\nof Government, through which it had passed.\n\nThe truth is (as Mr. Mede well observes[198]) _the seven heads of\nthe beast_, are a DOUBLE TYPE: _first_, they signify the _seven\nhills_, on which the city is placed; and, _then_, the _seven kings_,\nor governments, to which it had been subject; but still _on_ those\nseven hills, for which reason the same type is made to signify both:\nBut, if the type had been designed to carry a _single_ sense, and\n_kings_ had been that sense, as explicatory of _hills_, it had been\nvery preposterous to give the _interpretation_ of the type, and then\nto _interpret_ the interpretation, unless the expression had been so\nguarded as to convey this purpose in the most distinct manner. As it is\nnow put, there are manifestly TWO SENSES, and ONE TYPE[199].\n\nOn the whole, there can be no doubt concerning _the great city on seven\nhills_. It can be no other, than the city of Rome itself: In other\nwords, the Antichristian, is a _Roman Power_.\n\nStill, this Roman power, for any thing that hath hitherto appeared, may\nbe a _Pagan_ and _Civil_ power. But\n\nIII. The prophecies seem very clearly to point it out to us, _as an_\nECCLESIASTICAL and, in name and pretence, at least, _a_ CHRISTIAN\n_power_.\n\nTo begin again with the prophet, Daniel. He tells us, that the Horn\nwhich shall _arise after_, and from _among_, the ten horns, that is,\nthe Antichristian kingdom, as before explained, shall be DIVERSE from\nthe ten kingdoms, out of which it shall arise[200]. \u201cBut a kingdom may\nbe _diverse_ from other kingdoms, in various respects.\u201d Without doubt.\nAnd, therefore, we cannot certainly conclude from this single text,\nthat the _diversity_, mentioned, will consist in its being a spiritual\nkingdom. Yet, if ye reflect that this _diversity_ is given, as the\ncharacteristic mark of the Antichristian kingdom; that, although there\nmay be other and smaller differences between kingdoms, the greatest and\nmost signal is that which subsists between a temporal and spiritual\npower; nay, that Government, as such, is, and can only be, of two\nsorts, civil and spiritual, as corresponding to the two constituent\nparts of _man_, (the subject of all government in this world,) the Soul\nand the Body: Taking, I say, these considerations along with you, ye\ncannot esteem it a very harsh and violent interpretation, if, without\nlooking any farther, we incline to think that this _diversity_ of\nregimen, so emphatically pointed out, respects that great and essential\ndifference in human government, _only_. At least, it will be admitted,\nthat, if, from other and more express testimonies, the government of\nAntichrist appear to be a spiritual government, we shall, then, be\nauthorized to put such a construction on Daniel\u2019s prophecy, as will\nreach the full force and import of his expression. Such a kingdom must\nbe allowed to be eminently _diverse_ from secular kingdoms. So that\nthe harmony between the prophets on this subject will be clear and\nstriking.\n\nNow, such a testimony we seem to find in the Apostle, St. Paul; who,\nprophesying of _the man of Sin_, or Antichrist, to be revealed in the\nlatter days, makes it a distinguishing part of his character, _That\nhe_ SITTETH IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD[201]. Consider the force of these\nwords. A power, _seated in the temple of God_, can be nothing but a\npower suitable to that place, or a _spiritual_ power: just as a power,\n_seated in the throne of C\u00e6sar_, could only be interpreted of a _civil_\npower.\n\nNor say, because the context runs thus\u2014\u201cthat he, AS GOD, sitteth in\nthe temple of God, SHEWING himself that he IS GOD\u2014that therefore it\nonly means his claiming _divine honours_: a degree of blasphemy, very\napplicable to a _civil_ power.\u201d This objection has clearly no force:\nbecause his _sitting in the temple of God_ was the very _means_ (if\nwe rightly apply this prophecy) by which the man of sin rose to that\nabominable pre-eminence. It was by virtue of his _spiritual_, that he\nassumed a _divine_ character. So that the phrase\u2014_as God_\u2014and that\nother\u2014_shewing himself that he is God_\u2014sets before us, indeed, the\nextravagant height to which the man of sin aspired, and to which he\nascended; but, no way invalidates the conclusion from his sitting in\nthe temple of God\u2014that he was a _spiritual power_. Rather, we see\nthe propriety of this conclusion: because the text, thus understood,\nsuggests the _way_ in which the man of sin accomplished his blasphemous\npurpose: His _success_ arose, from his _station_ in the temple. On\nthe other hand, a power _sitting in the throne of C\u00e6sar_, might sit\nthere _as God_, and might _shew himself that he was God_ (as many of\nthe Roman Emperors did:) So that the clause\u2014_sitting in the temple of\nGod_\u2014has evidently no peculiar fitness, as applied to the usurpation\nof divine honours by a _civil tyrant_; whereas we see it has that\nfitness, when applied to a _spiritual_ tyrant. The context therefore\nproves nothing against the interpretation, here proposed and defended.\n\nBut, what is this _temple of God_? The temple at Jerusalem, it will be\nsaid; the only temple, so called, then subsisting in the world[202].\nAdmit this to be the literal sense of the words. Yet ye remember so\nmuch of what hath been said concerning the prophetic style, as not to\nthink it strange, that the literal sense should involve in it another,\na _mystical_ meaning. And this, without any uncertainty whatsoever.\nFor so, the term, _Jew_, means a _Christian_; the term, _David_, means\n_Christ_; the _incense_ of the temple-service, means the _prayers_\nof Christians; plainly and confessedly so, in numberless instances.\nAgreeably to this analogical use of Jewish terms, in the style of the\nprophets, _the temple of God_, nay _the temple of Jerusalem_[203] (if\nthat had been the expression) must, in all reason, be interpreted of\nthe _Christian church_, and could not, in the prophetic language, be\ninterpreted otherwise. When, therefore, Antichrist is said to _sit in\nthe temple of God_, it is the same thing as if it had been said of\nhim, _That he sitteth_, or ruleth, _in the church of Christ_. Now,\nsubstitute these words\u2014_the church of Christ_\u2014in the room of those\nother words\u2014_the temple of God_; and see, if St. Paul, supposing his\npurpose had been to express a spiritual power in opposition to a civil;\nsee, I say, if St. Paul could have conveyed that purpose more plainly.\n\nStill, we have another, and, if possible, a more decisive testimony\nin the _Revelations_. For, among the different views, which St. John\ngives us of Antichrist, in so many distinct visions, one is set before\nus in the following manner\u2014_And I beheld another beast coming up out\nof the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a\nDragon_[204]. Now, if we had known nothing more of these symbols, than\nwhat the obvious qualities of the animals themselves suggested to us,\nwe could only have inferred, that this ruling power (for that is the\nidea conveyed by the term, _Beast_) would put on the appearance of a\ngentle and pacific administration: I say, the _appearance_; for what\nits _real_ character was to be, is clearly enough expressed in what\nfollows, that this lamb-like beast _spake as a Dragon_. But, when we\nfurther reflect, that _horns_, in the prophetic style, are the emblems\nof _power_, and that a _Lamb_ is the peculiar, the _appropriated_\nsymbol of Christ, _the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the\nworld_[205], and is constantly so employed throughout this whole\nprophecy of the Revelations, we must, of necessity, conclude that\n_a beast with the horns of a lamb_ can only be a state or person,\npretending to such powers, as Christ exercised, and his Religion\nauthoriseth; that is, powers, _not of this world_, but purely spiritual.\n\nThe other symbol of a _Dragon_, confirms this conclusion. For a\n_Dragon_, in the prophecies, is the known symbol of the old Roman\nGovernment in its pagan, persecuting state. When, therefore, it is said\nthat the beast _spake as a Dragon_, the meaning is, That Antichrist\nshould assume the highest tone of civil authority in promoting his\ntyrannous purposes, though he cloked his fierce pretensions under the\nmeek semblance of a spiritual character. Taken together, these two\nsymbols speak as plainly, as symbolic terms can speak, That Antichrist\nwas to be a _religious person_, acting in the spirit of a _secular\ntyrant_. So exactly is he characterised by the poet Mantuan, addressing\nhimself to one of the Popes\u2014\n\n    _Ense_ potens _gemino_, cujus vestigia adorant\n    C\u00e6sar et aurato vestiti murice reges.\n\nOn the whole, I leave it to be considered, whether, when the prophecies\npronounce of Antichrist, that he should be, a power _diverse_ from all\nothers\u2014that he should _sit in the temple of God_\u2014and that he should\nhave _the horns of a lamb_\u2014I leave it, I say, to your consideration,\nwhether it be not plain that this extraordinary power, a Roman power,\nand residing at Rome, was to be a _Christian and Ecclesiastical_, and\nnot a _Pagan and Civil_ power.\n\nIV. Another obvious character of Antichrist, or rather, _complication_\nof characters, is that triple brand, impressed upon him, of a\n_tyrannical, intolerant, and idolatrous_, power.\n\nThe prophets hold him up to us, as _reigning_, or exercising an\noppressive and supereminent dominion, _over the kings of the earth_,\nthat is, of the Western empire[206]; as _making war with the lamb, and\nthe saints who receive not his mark in their foreheads_[207], that is,\npersecuting good and conscientious Christians, who refuse to wear the\nbadge of Antichrist, and to serve under him; and, as another _Babylon,\nthe mother of harlots and abominations of the earth_[208], that is,\nas polluted himself with the grossest idolatry, and as corrupting the\nnations with the same prophane worship.\n\nBut these marks, it will be said, have been found upon so many powers,\nwhich have appeared in the world, that they cannot be given as the\n_distinctive_ marks of _one_, that is, of the Papal Power: Nay, the\nBishop of Meaux goes further, and attempts to shew, by a very refined\nargument, that the very _terms_ of _whoredom_ and _fornication_, in\nwhich the _last_ of these marks, I mean, IDOLATRY, is set forth by the\nprophet in the _book of Revelations_, make it impossible for us to\napply that mark to Rome Christian.\n\nLet us see, then, _first_, what force there is in the criticism of this\nlearned Prelate.\n\nThat _whoredom_, or _fornication_, in the language of scripture, means\n_idolatry_, is agreed on all hands, and cannot be disputed: Whether the\nfigurative use of this term arose from observing, how constantly that\npollution attended idolatrous worship; or how fitly a communication\nwith false gods may be compared with that unlawful commerce: Whatever\nbe the ground of the analogy, it is clear to a demonstration that\n_whoredom_ is but another name for _idolatry_, which, under this idea,\nis very frequently charged upon the Jews by the ancient prophets.\n\nSometimes, however, (without doubt, to aggravate the charge) the\nidolatry of the Jews is considered in the light of _adultery_, that is,\nof infidelity to the God of Israel; to whom, as to her proper Lord and\n_Husband_, the Jewish nation had, by express stipulation, and in the\nmost solemn manner, contracted herself.\n\nBut, notwithstanding this promiscuous application of the terms,\n_fornication_, and _adultery_, to the idolatry of the Jews in the\nancient prophecies, it hath been remarked by the Bishop of Meaux, \u201cThat\nBabylon, or Rome, in the Revelations, is constantly and uniformly\nspoken of, as a _whore_, and not as an _adulteress_: whence he\nconcludes, that this charge is brought against Pagan Rome only, and not\nChristian Rome. For, why, he asks, is so much care taken not to impute\n_adultery_ to idolatrous Rome, if it had been a Christian city? when\nits polluting itself with this crime, contrary to the most express\nengagements, which Christians take upon themselves, of fidelity to the\nonly true God, might justly deserve, and, in propriety, may seem to\nrequire, this opprobrious charge, rather than that other lighter one\nof _fornication_; whereas, if Pagan Rome be here meant, its idolatry\ncould only be set forth under the idea of _fornication_, and not of\n_adultery_[209].\u201d\n\nNow, although, as I observed, the idolatrous Jews are frequently\ntreated by their prophets, as _fornicators_, as well as _adulterers_,\nnay, are much more frequently[210] represented under the _former_\nidea, than the _latter_; and although it be therefore true, that\n_fornication_ is not necessarily, and exclusively, to be understood of\nPagan idolatry, but may well be applied to Christian idolaters, as it\nwas to the Jewish; yet the force of the learned objector\u2019s argument\nwill not be obviated by this observation only. For the stress of it\nlies in this, \u201cThat the idolatry of Rome in the Revelations is _every\nwhere_, that is, purposely, termed _fornication_ (to insinuate to us,\nthat the charge is directed against a Pagan City, and not a Christian\nChurch), and _no where_, that is, purposely again, called _adultery_.\u201d\n\nThe objection is extremely ingenious; and, so far as I know, hath\nbeen, hitherto, unanswered. Yet, if any good reason can be assigned\nwhy the prophet should thus studiously prefer the term, _fornication_,\nto that of _adultery_, in describing the idolatry of Christian Rome,\nnotwithstanding those terms be used indifferently by the Jewish\nprophets, when they reprove the idolatry of their own countrymen, the\nBishop of Meaux would himself acknowledge, that his objection falls to\nthe ground.\n\nNow such a reason offers itself to us in the EMBLEM, under which St.\nJohn chuses to represent his idolatrous society. This emblem is,\n_Babylon_; a Pagan idolatrous city; to which the idea of _fornication_\nmay be colourably, and hath, in fact, been, applied[211], in order\nto express the transgression of the law of nature, in its idolatrous\nworship: But to such a city, _adultery_, could in no proper sense, be\napplied; because, it had never entered into any close engagement, or\n_marriage-contract_, as it were, with the God of heaven.\n\nThis being admitted, we see the reason, why Rome Christian is taxed\nas a _whore_ simply, and not as an adulteress. For what had been\nimproperly said of the _type_, cannot, on the principles of decorum,\nbe transferred to the _anti-type_. If Babylon be only a _harlot_,\nshe is a harlot still, and nothing more, when she stands for Rome,\nwhether Pagan, or Christian. The concinnity of the figure, and the\njust correspondence of the thing signified to the sign, demands the\nobservance of this rule; which cannot be violated without manifest\nabsurdity and confusion.\n\n\u201cBut why then, it is asked, was such an emblem employed? Why was not\nJerusalem, or Samaria (of which _adultery_ might be predicated) rather\nchosen, than Babylon, for the type, or representation of _idolatrous\nChristian Rome_?\u201d\n\nThe reason, again, is obvious. It was, because Babylon was the _first_\nof all idolatrous cities; and the _fittest_[212] to emblematize the\nenormous guilt, or to set in full light the extensive influence, of\nidolatrous Rome. For each, in its turn, was _the mother of harlots and\nabominations of the earth_; the _former_ corrupting the _heathen_ world\nwith her fornication, and the latter, the _Christian_.\n\nWhen therefore for this, or the like reason, Babylon was made the\nemblem of Christian Rome, the prophet was obliged to retain the idea of\nfornication, only, and not to interpose that of adultery, through the\nwhole tenour of his application.\n\nIt may, further, be worth observing, that _pagan_ idolatry is, for the\nmost part, exposed by the ancient prophets under the notion of LYES,\nor LYING VANITIES[213]; and very rarely, I think in no more than one\nor two short passages, under that of _fornication_. For vague lust was\nso generally practised in the heathen world, and the law of nature,\ncondemning that vice, so little known, or respected by it, that the\nmetaphor would not have conveyed to a Pagan idolater the atrocious\nnature of his crime. The Mosaic Law, on the other hand, interdicting\nfornication in the severest terms, and requiring that _there should be\nno whore of the daughters of Israel_[214], the guilt of idolatry was\nvery forcibly, as well as naturally, represented to a Jew, under that\nidea.\n\nAccordingly, we find, that the prophets every where, and in whole\npages, employ this figure, when they address themselves to Jewish\nidolaters. Whence it may seem, that, although there be sufficient\nauthorities to justify the prophet St. John in considering his\nemblematic Babylon under the idea of a _harlot_, yet he would not\nhave prosecuted even this inferior charge of _fornication_ so far as\nhe has done, and in so many parts of his prophecy, if his purpose had\nnot been to apply it to a _believing_, and not a Pagan city. If the\nmystical Babylon be _Christian_ Rome, we see the force and propriety of\nthis representation; which had clearly been less apt, if Pagan Rome,\naccording to the Bishop of Meaux, had been intended by the prophet.\n\nWe see then, in both ways, why Rome is not an _adulteress_ in the\nRevelations; and why she is so emphatically, a _harlot_. The type\nemployed forbad the _former_ charge, though the anti-type be _Rome\nChristian_: The _latter_ charge had not been so much laboured, if the\nanti-type had been _Rome Pagan_.\n\nThus, the edge of this acute objection is entirely taken off, and the\nexecution, it was to make on the Protestant system, prevented.\n\nTo return, now, to the consideration of our _three_ marks. These\nmarks, it is said, agree to so many other powers, besides that of\nthe Papacy, that they cannot be made the peculiar, distinctive\ncharacters of Christian Rome. And, without doubt, considered merely\nin themselves, they cannot. But, having already understood that the\npower, thus stigmatized, is a power seated in the _seven-hilled_ city,\nand that too, an _ecclesiastical_ power, one sees clearly that, if the\nprophecies have hitherto received their accomplishment in any degree,\nthese marks can only be sought in Papal Rome, and must be the proper,\nexclusive characters of that power. I say, _one sees this_; but, it\nmust be owned, not without amazement, That a species of government,\ncalling itself Christian, and professing to model itself on the example\nof the _Lamb_, on the pure and simple principles of the Gospel, should\nyet be all over stained with those specific vices, which Christianity\nmost abhors\u2014the utmost pride of secular domination\u2014the most\nrelentless zeal against the rights of conscience\u2014and, what is still\nmore incredible, the most blasphemous idolatry. The accumulated infamy\nof these crimes struck the prophet, St. John, so forcibly, that, on the\nsight of this portentous monster, exhibited to him in the vision, _he\nwondered_, as himself expresses it, _with great admiration_[215].\n\nBut, strange as this vision appeared to the sacred _prophet_, the Papal\nhistory is found to realize all the wonders of it: And, backward as we\nmay be to interpret this vision of a church, professedly Christian,\nthat church herself is so little scandalized at the imputation of these\ncrimes, that she is ready to avow them all; the _two first_, directly\nand openly; and the _last_, when set in a certain light, and explained\nin her own manner. In short, she prides herself in the _extent of her\nsway_[216], and the _fire of her zeal_[217], and only quibbles with us\nabout the meaning of the term, _idolatry_.\n\nTo cut the matter short, then, and to keep clear of those endless\ndebates concerning the worship of _Images_, of the _Cross_, and of\nthe _Host_ in the celebration of the Mass; debates, which a dextrous\nsophist may find means to carry on with a shew of argument, and with\nsome degree of plausibility; To set aside, I say, all these topics,\nlet it be observed, at once, That _idolatry_, in the scriptural sense\nof the word, is of _two sorts_, and consists either, 1. in giving the\nhonour due to the one true God, as maker and governor of the world, to\nany other supposed, though subordinate god; Or, 2, in giving the honour\ndue to Christ, as the sole mediator between God and Man, to any other\nsupposed, though subordinate, mediator. The _former_, is the idolatry\nforbidden by the Jewish law, and by the law of Nature: The _latter_,\nis Christian idolatry, properly so called, and is the abomination,\nprohibited and condemned, in so severe terms, by the law of the Gospel.\n\nNow, whether the _former_ species of idolatry be chargeable on the\nchurch of Rome or not; and whether the _crime_ of that species, may not\nbe incurred by honouring the true object of worship, through the medium\nof some sensible image: Whatever, I say, be determined on these two\npoints (which, for the present, shall be set aside) the _other_ species\nof idolatry is, without all doubt, chargeable on any Christian church\nthat shall adopt or acknowledge, in its religious addresses, another\nmediator, besides Christ Jesus.\n\nBut the church of Rome (I do not say, in the private writings of her\ndivines, but) in the solemn forms of her ritual, _publicly professes_,\nand, by her canons and councils, _authoritatively enjoyns_, the worship\nof saints and angels, under the idea of mediators and intercessors: not\nindeed in exclusion of Christ, as _one_, or, if you will, as _chief_\nmediator, but in manifest defiance of his claim to be, the _sole_\nmediator. This charge is truly and justly brought against that Church,\nas it now stands, and hath stood, for many ages; and cannot, by any\nsubterfuge whatsoever, be evaded[218]. And therefore, to the other\ncharacters of _Pride_ and _Intolerance_, which she takes to herself\nwith much complacency, she must, now, be content (whether she will or\nno) to have that of D\u00c6MON-WORSHIP, or ANTICHRISTIAN IDOLATRY, fastened\nupon her.\n\nNor let the followers of that communion think to elude this charge, by\nsaying, _That they only request the saints, as we commonly do any good\nman, to pray for them_[219]. False and disingenuous! _False_; because\ntheir breviaries and litanies shew, that they supplicate the saints\nto befriend them by their own inherent power, or to intercede for\nthem to the throne of God by virtue of their own personal merits[220],\nin blasphemous derogation to the all-atoning and incommunicable\nintercession of Jesus. _Disingenuous_, too; because they know very\nwell, that the question is concerning unseen and heavenly mediators\nonly, not men like ourselves, such as we live and converse with on\nearth; whom we only admonish of their duty, and to whom we only do\nours, when we call upon them to exert an act of piety and common\ncharity in praying for their fellow-christians. Our meaning is but that\nwhich the Apostle well expresses, when he would have us _consider one\nanother, to provoke unto love and to good works_[221]; and not at all\nto supplicate our Christian brethren as powerful intercessors, in whose\nmeritorious virtues we confide, and to whom, as possessing a proper\ninterest in the Almighty, by the worth of their own persons, we commit\nour dearest concerns, The forgiveness of our sins, and the salvation of\nour souls.\n\n\u201cBut this, it will be said, is a very defective, and even unfair,\naccount of the matter. We do more than admonish our brethren of their\nduty, when we sollicit their prayers for us. We invite them directly,\nand formally, to _intercede_ for us to the throne of Grace. We are\nallowed, nay encouraged, to lay a stress on their intercession; and,\nwhat is more, we are given to understand that such intercession,\nespecially if it be made by good men, will have weight and influence in\nHeaven. What else is the meaning of the Apostle, when he assures us,\n_That the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much_.\nJames v. 16.? And, if the prayer of _a righteous man_, much more the\nprayer of glorified saints and angels.\u201d\n\nI have put the argument, I think, in all its force, and (because the\nadvocates of the papal cause affect to think it unanswerable) shall\nexamine it, with care.\n\n\u201cWe apply to good Christians, or to those we esteem such, to intercede\nfor us by their prayers to Heaven.\u201d We do so; and are encouraged in\nthis application, by the _example_, and by the _directions_ of the\nApostles. For I shall not take advantage of what some have conceived to\nbe the meaning of St. James, in the place alledged, where he attributes\nso much to the prayer of, a righteous man, That the prayer, there\nspoken of, is _the prayer of faith_, or a spiritual gift miraculously\nconferred on the first teachers of the Gospel, and confined to their\nministry: I will not, I say, take advantage of this gloss; because,\nwhatever foundation it may seem to have in the context of that epistle,\nI allow it to be clear from other places of the New Testament[222],\nThat the duty of Christians is to pray, that is, to _intercede_, for\neach other.\n\nBut then I desire it may be observed,\n\n1. What difference there is between desiring good men to pray for\nus, in the Gospel sense of that duty; and desiring Saints and Angels\nto pray for us, in the sense of the papal rituals. We request those\nprayers, only as they shall be offered up in the name, and through the\nmerits, of the great, and properly speaking, sole intercessor; and we\nlook for no effect from them, but on that condition. The Church of\nRome addresses herself to Saints and Angels, as _intercessors_, by,\nwhat we may call, their own right, by virtue of their own inherent\nsanctity: Or, rather, she applies to them directly, as to _Saviours_,\nfor their proper and immediate help, and expects it from the supposed\nprivilege of their rank, or merits, independently of their _prayers_,\nor, at least, of the _manner_ in which those prayers shall be presented\nthrough the name of Jesus. The formal words of their Litanies shew,\nthat such is their meaning.\n\nBut they will say, that this condition of interceding, or saving,\nthrough the merits of Christ, is implied, though not expressed. I reply\nthen,\n\n2. That, admitting it to be so, there is, yet, the widest difference\nbetween _praying_ to Saints and Angels to pray for us, though in the\nGospel forms of intercession; and merely _requesting_ good men to pray\nfor us, in those forms. The _latter_ address is made in a way remote\nfrom all appearance of idolatry, and free from the suspicion of it:\nThe _former_, is preferred in the _place_, at the _time_, with the\n_posture_, in the _language_, in short, with all the circumstances and\nformalities of divine worship.\n\n3. I observe, that, when we ask the prayers of men, we know that they\nhear our address to them: We cannot even suppose thus much of Saints\nand Angels, without ascribing to them the incommunicable attributes of\nthe Almighty.\n\nStill, it may be insisted, That prayers, whether offered up to God by\nmen, or glorified spirits, are however to be considered in the light of\n_Intercessions_; and that therefore, so far as we combat the practice\nof saint-worship on that ground, Protestants, as well as Papists, when\nthey employ the prayers of others, are guilty of idolatry.\n\nThis, in truth, is the hinge, on which the question turns: And, to shew\nthe difference of the two cases, palpably and clearly, I say,\n\nFourthly, and lastly, That the Gospel, in permitting, or rather in\ncommanding us to ask the prayers of each other, justifies this sort of\nintercession, and absolves it from the blame and guilt of idolatry. It\ngives a sanction to this mode of mediating with God by his Saints, on\nearth; and does not regard it as a practice that interferes with the\nmediatorial office of Jesus, in Heaven.\n\nThe same Gospel, on the contrary, (I inquire not, for what reasons)\nsays not a word, from which we can infer, that any such address is\ndirected, or permitted, to be made to Angels or Spirits. It even\ncondemns all addresses of this kind, under the opprobrious name of\nunauthorized, or WILL-WORSHIP[223]. Though we be allowed, then, to\nhave good men, in some sense, for our mediators or intercessors on\nearth, we are not allowed to have any mediator or intercessor in the\ntabernacle of heaven, but Jesus, the great high priest of Christians,\nonly. This last sort of intercession, by Angels and glorified Saints,\nis against the spirit and letter of our religion. It is a practice,\nwhich, not being enjoined, is forbidden; which, being disallowed, is\nreprobated. In a word, It entrenches on the incommunicable honour and\nprerogatives of the great, the appointed, the sole Mediator in Heaven,\nseated at God\u2019s right hand, _who ever liveth to make intercession for\nus_[224]. It sets up new mediators, without, and against his leave: It\nis, then, un-christian, and _idolatrous_.\n\nThus at length, I suppose, it appears indisputably, That we are neither\nunreasonable, nor uncharitable, in charging IDOLATRY, as well as the\nother two anti-christian vices of _pride_, and _intolerance_, to the\naccount of papal Rome.\n\nV. The last prophetic mark of Antichrist, which I shall have time to\npoint out to you, and what perhaps you may esteem the most material of\nall, is, _The_ TIME _in which that power is said to make its appearance\nin the world_.\n\nIt hath been already observed[225], that the _chronology_ of the\nprophecies is, for the most part, not defined with that exactness,\nwhich we expect in historical compositions. It is commonly expressed\nin terms that may be interpreted with some latitude; or, when the date\nis more precisely delivered, we are still at a loss, in some respect\nor other, before the event, in what manner to form our calculation.\nHowever, the expression is not so loose and vague, but that we may\nclearly apprehend _about_ what time the predicted event will come to\npass.\n\nThus, for instance, the season of Christ\u2019s _coming into the world_ was\nfixed by such circumstances as these\u2014that it should be before the\ntotal dissolution of the Jewish state\u2014or while the second temple was\nyet standing: And, when it was determinately foretold to be after the\nexpiration of _seventy weeks, from the going forth of the commandment\nto return and to build Jerusalem_, still, besides the prophetic and\nsomewhat obscure sense of the word _weeks_, we cannot beforehand\ncalculate exactly _when_ these weeks commence[226], or in what term\nthey are to be accomplished. Yet, notwithstanding these uncertainties,\nthe Jews saw very clearly, and, from them, the rest of the world\nconceived an expectation, that the person predicted was to appear in\nthat age, or _about_ that time, in which he did appear, and which, from\nthe tenour of the prophecies, they had computed would be the time of\nhis appearance.\n\nIn like manner, the season of Antichrist\u2019s appearance in the world is\nleft to be collected from general intimations; and, when the duration\nof his tyranny is limited to _twelve hundred and sixty days_, besides\nthat the expression, as before, is \u00e6nigmatical, we have no means of\nfixing the commencement of that period so precisely, but that some\ndoubts may arise about it, till the accomplishment of the prophecy\nshall give light and certainty to the computation. Yet still, as in the\nformer case, we have such _data_ to proceed upon in calculating the\nreign of Antichrist, as may let us see _about_ what time it was to be\nexpected.\n\nThus much being premised, I have now only to remind you of what the\nprophets expressly declare concerning the rise of Antichrist. The\neldest of these, the prophet Daniel, says it was to be in the time of\nthe _fourth_ kingdom, that is, of the Roman; which, for the convenience\nof the prophetic calculations, is considered as subsisting, though\nin a new form, under the ten kings, among whom it was to be divided.\nHe further tells us, that Antichrist was to arise from _among_, and\n_after_, the ten kings; that is, we are to look for him _then_,\n(and not before) when the Roman empire has undergone that change of\ngovernment[227].\n\nNext, St. Paul, it seems, had told the Thessalonians, what it was\nthat, for a time, prevented the appearance of Antichrist: But that\ninformation hath not been transmitted to us. However, he says to\nthem\u2014_Ye know_ WHAT _with-holdeth that he might be revealed in his\ntime_: and further adds, HE, _who now letteth, will let, until he be\ntaken out of the way_[228].\n\nNow, by putting these passages together, and by comparing them with\nthe predictions of Daniel, not we of these later times only, before\nwhom _the man of sin_ is supposed to be evidently displayed, but the\nearly fathers of the church, long before the events happened to which\nthese prophetic notices could be applied, clearly saw, or at least\ngenerally conjectured, that the impediment, here mentioned, was the\nthen subsisting power of the C\u00e6sarean government; which, they said, was\nfirst to be taken away, and then Antichrist would be revealed[229].\n\nLastly, the Apostle St. John not only confirms the prophecies of\nDaniel, that Antichrist should arise out of the ten kings, who were to\nhave the western empire shared out among them, but adds this remarkable\ncircumstance, That he should RIDE the ten kings[230]; which implies,\nthat he should _co-exist_ with them: And it further appears, that\nhe was to receive his whole power from them, and was finally to be\ndestroyed by them.\n\nNow, turn to the history of the _fourth_ kingdom, and see how it\ncorresponds to these prophecies. Observe, when the western empire under\nits C\u00e6sarean head, was taken away; how it was, afterwards, dismembered\nby the northern nations; by what degrees it fell at length, into _ten_,\nthat is, _many_ distinct, independent kingdoms; at what time this\npartition was made, or rather fully settled and completed. From this\ntime, and not before, you are to look for Antichrist, now gradually\nrearing himself up among the ten kings; and at length, in a condition,\nby the power, which they gave to him, to _ride_, that is, to direct\nand govern them. From this time, again, compute the 1260 years, the\npredicted period of his government; and, keeping your eye all along on\nthe ecclesiastical and civil state of our western world (the predicted\ntheatre of all these transactions) see, if you can help concluding,\nI do not say at what precise time, but _about_ what time, Antichrist\nappeared; see, if the _commencement_ of his reign be not so far\ndetermined as that you may be certain of its being long since past; and\nsee, if very much, at least, of that allotted _period_, through which\nhis dominion was to continue, according to the prophecies, be not, by\nthe evident attestation of history, now run out.\n\nTo DRAW, then, what hath been said on the several marks of Antichrist,\nto a point. Consider, within _what part_ of the world, he was to\nappear; in _what seat_ or throne, he was to be established; of _what\nkind_, his sovereignty was to be; with _what attributes_, he was to be\ninvested; in _what season_, or _about what time_, and for _how long\na time_, he was to reign and prosper: Consider these FIVE obvious\ncharacters of Antichrist, which the prophets have distinctly set\nforth, and which, from them, I have successively held up to you: And,\nthen, compare them with the correspondent characters, which you find\ninscribed, by the pen of authentic history, on a certain power, sprung\nup in the West; seated in the city of Rome; calling himself the Vicar\nof Christ; yet _full of names of blasphemy_, that is, stigmatized with\nthose crimes, which Christianity, as such, holds most opprobrious,\nthe crimes of tyrannic dominion, of persecution, and even Idolatry;\nand lastly, now subsisting in the world, though with evident symptoms\nof decay, after a long reign, whose rise and progress can be traced,\nand whose duration, hitherto, is uncontradicted by any prophecy: Put,\nI say, all these correspondent marks together, and see if they do\nnot furnish, if not an absolute demonstration, yet a high degree of\nprobability, that apostate papal Rome is the very Antichrist foretold.\n\nAt least, you will admit that these correspondencies are signal enough\nto merit your attention, and even to justify your pains in looking\nfurther into so curious and interesting a subject. Ye will say to\nyourselves, That the prophecies concerning Antichrist deserve at least\nto be considered with care, since in so many striking particulars, they\nappear, on the face of them, to have been completed.\n\nThis _conclusion_, it is presumed, is a reasonable one: And the end of\nthis discourse will be answered, if ye are, at length, prevailed upon\nto _draw_ this conclusion.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON XII.\n\nUSES OF THIS INQUIRY INTO THE PROPHECIES.\n\nREV. xxii. 7.\n\n_Behold, I come quickly: Blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the\nprophecy of this book._\n\n\nBefore we engage in a work of time and difficulty, we naturally ask,\n\u201cCUI BONO, to what considerable end and purpose, are our labours to be\nreferred?\u201d\n\nAlthough it may, then, be presumed, that enough hath been said on the\nprophecies to excite a reasonable desire of looking further into them,\nand even to produce a general persuasion, that they have been, or may\nbe, understood; yet, it may quicken your attention to this argument,\nand support your industry in the prosecution of it, to set before you\nthe USES, which may result from a full and final conviction (if such\nshould be the issue of your inquiries), That these prophecies are not\nintelligible only, but have, in many instances, been rightly applied,\nand clearly fulfilled.\n\nThese USES are very many. I shall collect, only, _two or three_ of the\nmore important, for your consideration.\n\nThough every period of prophecy be instructive, that which takes in the\ngreat events and revolutions, which have come to pass in the _Christian\nChurch_, is, for obvious reasons, more especially interesting to us,\nwho live in these latter ages of the world.\n\nOf the numerous predictions, contained in either Testament, which,\nit is presumed, respect these events, the most considerable by far,\nbecause the most minute and circumstantial, are those of St. John in\nthe _Revelations_; which treat professedly of such things as were\nto befall _the servants of Jesus_[231], from the prophet\u2019s own days,\ndown to that awful period, when all the mysterious councils of God,\nin regard to the Christian dispensation, shall be finally shut up in\nthe day of judgment. To these predictions, then, a more particular\nattention is due, the rather because they have been fulfilling from\nthe time of their delivery\u2014_behold, I come quickly_\u2014and, above all,\nbecause a _blessing_ is pronounced on those, who keep, that is, who\nobserve, who study and contemplate, _the sayings of this book_.\n\nAssuredly, then, this study will be rewarded with signal benefits. And\none sees immediately:\n\nI. In the first place, that no small benefit must arise to those, who\nadmit the completion of these prophecies, so far, I mean, as the tenour\nof the book makes it probable that they have been completed, _from\nthe awful sense, which this conviction must needs give them of the\nChristian dispensation itself_.\n\nThat this dispensation, ushered in by so long a train of prophecies,\nshould still be attended by others, through all the stages and\nperiods of it; that secular empires should rise and fall, unnoticed,\nas it were, by the Spirit of God, while the kingdom of his Son is\nso peculiarly distinguished, and its whole history, in a manner,\nanticipated, by the most express predictions: that Jesus should be,\nas he says of himself, _the alpha and omega, the beginning and the\nend_[232], of all God\u2019s religious dispensations to mankind: that\nhis _first coming_, or personal appearance in the flesh, should be\nsignified from the foundation of the world, and from time to time more\nexplicitly declared in a variety of successive prophecies, till the\ngreat event, at length, fulfilled them all: and that, together with\nthis event (the foundation of others, still more illustrious) his\n_second coming_, in the future and gradual manifestations of his power\n(for they were to be _gradual_) should be distinctly marked out, and\nduly accomplished, in the fortunes of the Christian church, or of that\nkingdom, which he came to erect in the world; while this subject, and\nno other, engaged the ultimate attention of all the prophets: There\nis, I say, in this scheme of things, something so astonishingly vast,\nsomething so much above and beyond the attention that was ever known\nto be paid to any other person or thing in the compass of universal\nhistory, as must strike an awe into the hearts of all men, who consider\nChristianity in this point of view; and must compel the most negligent\nto confess, or suspect at least, That _such_ a dispensation is a matter\nof no light moment, but, indeed, the most important in the eyes of\nProvidence, and the most interesting to mankind, that can be conceived,\nor expressed.\n\nIf, then, there be reason, to _admit_ the completion of such\nprophecies, respecting such a subject, in any considerable number\nof instances, within that space of time which is already elapsed;\nand, therefore, to _expect_ that the remaining prophecies will, in\nlike manner, be fulfilled, The conclusion is, that the dispensation\nof God through Christ is of the last consequence to the inhabitants\nof this world: And the obvious _use_ of this conclusion will be,\nthat it further obliges all serious men who have thus far profited\nby a study of the sacred oracles, to put that salutary question\nto themselves\u2014_How shall we escape, if we neglect so great\nsalvation[233]?_\n\nConnected with _this_ use of prophecy,\n\nII. A _second_ is, That it sets before us, not the importance only, but\nthe _truth_ of Christianity, in the strongest light.\n\nSo many illustrious events falling in, one after another, just as the\nword of prophecy foretold they should, must afford the most convincing\nproof, That our Religion is, as it claims to be, of divine institution:\na _proof_, the more convincing, because it is continually growing upon\nus; and, the farther we are removed from the source of our religion,\nthe clearer is the evidence of its truth. Other proofs are supposed to\nbe, and, in some degree, perhaps, are, weakened by a length of time.\nBut this, from prophecy, as if to make amends for their defects, hath\nthe peculiar privilege of strengthening by age itself: till hereafter,\nas we presume, the accumulated force of so much evidence shall\noverpower all the scruples of infidelity; and bring about, at length,\nthat general conversion both of Jew and Gentile, which the sacred\noracles have so expressly foretold.\n\nIn both these ways, then, by impressing on the mind the most affecting\nsense of Christianity; that is, by giving us, _first_, the most _awful\nview of its pretensions_, and _then_, by producing the _firmest\nconviction of its truth_, the word of prophecy hath an evident\ntendency, in proportion as we see its accomplishment, to promote the\ngreat ends, for which it was given, till _the earth shall be filled\nwith the knowledge of the Lord_, and _all the inhabitants of the world\nshall learn righteousness_[234].\n\nThese uses are general, and concern _all_ men: The\n\nIII. _Next_, I shall mention, is more especially addressed to\n_thinking_ and inquisitive men.\n\nWhen the view of things, exhibited under the two preceding articles,\nhas raised our admiration, to the utmost, of the divine councils in\ncontriving, preparing, and at length executing so vast a scheme, as\nthat of Christianity, for the benefit of mankind; we are led to expect\nthat the _effect_ will correspond to the _means_ employed, and that a\nstriking change will, at length, be brought about in the condition of\nthe moral world.\n\nBut, in surveying the history of this new religion, the theme of so\nmany prophecies, and the great, the favourite object, if I may so\nspeak, of divine Providence, \u201csome are not a little scandalized to\nobserve that nothing hath come to pass in any degree equivalent to\nsuch an expence of forethought and contrivance; that, for a season,\nindeed, virtue and piety seemed to triumph, in the exemplary lives of\nthe first converts to this religion, and in the overthrow of Pagan\nidolatry; but that this golden age was soon over; and that, now, for\nmore than fourteen hundred years, the passions of men have kept their\nusual train, or rather have expatiated with more licence and fury in\nthe Christian world, than in the Pagan; that _idolatry_, in all its\nforms, has revived in the bosom of Christianity; and, as to _private\nmorals_, that this Religion has even made men worse than it found them,\nor, at best, of corrupt sensualists, has only made them intolerant and\nvindictive bigots; that, in a word, the _kingdom of heaven_, as it is\ncalled, has, hitherto, neither served to the glory of God, nor to the\ngood of mankind; at least, to neither of these ends, in the _degree_,\nthat might have been expected from such high pretensions.\u201d\n\nThe colouring of this picture, we will say, is too strong: but the\noutline, at least, is fairly given. The corruptions of the Christian\nworld have been notorious and great; and though they are indeed the\ncorruptions of men calling themselves Christians, and not the vices of\nChristianity, yet he who the most dispassionately contemplates so sad\na scene, can hardly reconcile appearances to what must have been his\nnatural expectations.\n\nHere, then, the prophecies of this book, I mean, of the Apocalypse,\ncome in to our relief. This book contains a detailed account of\nwhat would befall mankind under this last and so much magnified\ndispensation. It foretells all that history has recorded. It sets\nbefore us the corrupt state of the Christian world in almost as strong\na light, as that in which our indignant speculatist himself has placed\nit. But it, likewise, opens better things to our view. It shews, that\nthe _end_ of this dispensation is to promote virtue and happiness; and\nthat this end shall finally, but through many and long obstructions,\nbe accomplished. It represents the cause of righteousness, as still\nmaintaining itself in all the conflict, to which it is exposed; as\ngradually gaining ground, and prevailing, through the secret aid of\ndivine Providence, over all opposition, till it obtains a firm and\npermanent establishment; till _the Saints reign_ (not in a fanatical,\nbut in the sober and evangelical sense of that word, _reign_) _in the\nearth_[235]; till _the Lord God omnipotent reigneth_[236].\n\nSo far, then, as these prophecies appear to have been completed,\nthey reconcile us to that disordered scene, which hath hitherto been\npresented to us; and give repose to the anxious mind, in the assured\nhope of better things to come. The worst, that has _happened_, was\nforeseen; and the best, that we _conceive_, will hereafter come to\npass. Thus, the reasonable expectations of men are answered, and the\nhonour of God\u2019s government abundantly vindicated.\n\nIV. The _last_ use, I shall suggest to you, is that which immediately\nresults from the study of the Apocalyptic prophecies _concerning\nAntichrist_; I mean, _the support that is hereby given to Protestantism\nagainst all the cavils and pretensions of its adversaries_.\n\nFor, if these prophecies are rightly applied to Papal Rome, and have,\nin part, been signally accomplished in the history of that church, it\nis beyond all doubt, that our communion with it is dangerous; nay, that\nour separation from it is a matter of strict duty. _Come out of her, my\npeople, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not\nof her plagues_[237]\u2014are plain and decisive words, and, if allowed to\nbe spoken of that church, bring the controversy between the Protestant\nand Papal Christians to a short issue.\n\nI know, the advocates of Rome pretend, that, not a sense of duty, but\na _spirit of revenge_ operates in the minds of Protestants, when they\naffect to lay so great a stress on the Apocalyptic prophecies. \u201c_Reward\nher, even as she rewarded you_[238]\u201d\u2014is, they say, another of their\nfavourite texts, by which they take themselves to be as much obliged,\nas by that which they so commonly alledge for quitting her communion.\nIt is not, therefore, to cover themselves from the imputation of\nschism, but to authorize the vengeance, they meditate against us, that\nwe are stunned with the cry of Antichrist and Babylon[239].\u201d\n\nTo this charge, I can only reply, That, if any Protestant writers\nhave put that sense on the words\u2014_reward her, as she rewarded\nyou_\u2014they must answer for their own temerity and indiscretion. They,\nwho understand themselves, and the language of prophecy, disclaim the\nodious imputation. They say, That they neither admit the lawfulness\nof persecution in any case, on the account of religion, nor have the\nleast thought of instigating the Christian world to any sanguinary\nattempts against the Papacy. What the _event_ may be in the councils\nof Providence, is another consideration: But they neither avow, nor\napprove those principles, which tend to produce it. They, further,\ninsist, That the two passages under consideration, though, both of\nthem, expressed in the _imperative_ form, require a very different\nconstruction: That the language of prophecy _seems_ very often to\nauthorise what it only foretells; and to command that which it\nbarely permits: that, therefore, the sense of such passages is to be\ndetermined by the circumstances of the case; that, where obedience\nis lawful, there the _preceptive_ form may be admitted; but, where\nit is not, there nothing more is intended than the certainty of the\n_event_: That this distinction is to be made in the present case; for\nthat Christianity doth not allow vindictive retaliations, or _holy\nwars_, for the sake of religion, and that offensive arms taken up in\nthe cause of God (how confidently soever some have justified their\nzeal by the authority of the Jewish Law, ill-applied) are abominable\nand _antichristian_: Whence we rightly conclude, that\u2014_reward her, as\nshe rewarded you_\u2014are words not to be taken injunctively; while those\nother words\u2014_come out of her, my people_\u2014expressing nothing but what\nit was previously our duty to do, are very clearly to be so taken.\n\nLastly, We say, that the context in the two places alledged, justifies\nthis distinction. _Come out of her, my people._ Why? _That ye be not\npartakers, of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues._ The\nreason is just, and satisfactory. _Reward her._ Why? No reason is\nassigned, or could be assigned consistently with the spirit of the\nChristian religion: It only follows, _as she has rewarded you_\u2014words,\nwhich express only the _measure_, and the _equitable grounds_ of the\nallotted punishment, not the _duty_ of Christians to inflict it.\n\nI return, then, from the confutation of this cavil (the most plausible,\nhowever, as well as invidious, which the wit of Rome has started on\nthis subject) to the conclusion, before laid down, That the completion\nof the Apocalyptic prophecies in the Papal apostasy, if seen and\nconfessed, affords an unanswerable defence and vindication of the\nProtestant churches.\n\nThis conclusion, that THE POPE IS ANTICHRIST, and that other, that THE\nSCRIPTURE IS THE SOLE RULE OF CHRISTIAN FAITH, were the _two_ great\nprinciples, on which the Reformation was originally founded. How the\n_first_ of these principles came to be DISGRACED _among ourselves_,\nI have shewn in another discourse[240]. It may now be worth while to\nobserve, in one word, through what fatal mismanagement the _latter_\nprinciple was even _generally_ DISAVOWED and DESERTED.\n\nWhen the Reformers had thrown off all respect for the Papal chair, and\nwere for regulating the faith of Christians by the sacred scriptures,\nit still remained a question, _On what grounds, those scriptures should\nbe interpreted_. The voice of the church, speaking by her schoolmen,\nand modern doctors, was universally, and without much ceremony,\nrejected. But the Fathers of the primitive church were still in great\nrepute among Protestants themselves; who dreaded nothing so much as\nthe imputation of novelty, which they saw would be fastened on their\nopinions, and who, besides, thought it too presuming to trust entirely\nto the dictates of what was called _the private spirit_. The church\nof Rome availed herself with dexterity, of this prejudice, and of the\ndistress to which the Protestant party was reduced by it. The authority\nof these ancient and venerable interpreters was sounded high by the\nCatholic writers; and the clamour was so great and so popular, that the\nProtestants knew not how, consistently with their own principles, or\neven in mere decency, to decline the appeal which was thus confidently\nmade to that tribunal. The Reformers, too, piqued themselves on\ntheir superior skill in ancient literature; and were ashamed to have\nit thought that their adversaries could have any advantage against\nthem in a dispute, which was to be carried on in that quarter. Other\nconsiderations had, perhaps, their weight with particular churches:\nBut, for these reasons, chiefly, all of them forwardly closed in with\nthe proposal of trying their cause at the bar of the ancient church:\nAnd, thus, shifting their ground, maintained henceforth, not that\nthe scriptures were the sole rule of faith, but the scriptures, _as\ninterpreted by the primitive fathers_.\n\nWhen the state of the question was thus changed, it was easy to see\nwhat would be the issue of so much indiscretion. The dispute was not\nonly carried on in a dark and remote scene, into which the people\ncould not follow their learned champions; but was rendered infinitely\ntedious, and, indeed, interminable. For those early writings, now to be\nconsidered as of the highest authority, were voluminous in themselves;\nand, what was worse, were composed in so loose, so declamatory, and\noften in so hyperbolical a strain, that no certain sense could be\naffixed to their doctrines, and any thing, or every thing, might, with\nsome plausibility, be proved from them.\n\nThe inconvenience was sensibly felt by the Protestant world. And, after\na prodigious waste of industry and erudition, a learned foreigner[241],\nat length, shewed the inutility and the folly of pursuing the contest\nany further. In a well-considered discourse, _On the use of the\nFathers_, he clearly evinced, that their authority was much less, than\nwas generally supposed, in _all_ points of religious controversy;\nand that their judgment was especially incompetent in _those_ points,\nwhich were agitated by the two parties. He evinced this conclusion by\na variety of unanswerable arguments; and chiefly by shewing that the\nmatters in debate were, for the most part, such as had never entered\ninto the heads of those old writers, being, indeed, of much later\ngrowth, and having first sprung up in the barbarous ages. They could\nnot, therefore, decide on questions, which they had no occasion to\nconsider, and had, in fact, never considered; however their careless or\nfigurative expression might be made to look that way, by the dextrous\nmanagement of the controversialists.\n\nThis discovery had great effects. It opened the eyes of the more candid\nand intelligent inquirers: And our incomparable Chillingworth, with\nsome others[242], took the advantage of it to set the controversy\nwith the church of Rome, once more, on its proper foot; and to\nestablish, for ever, the old principle, THAT THE BIBLE, and that only,\n(interpreted by our best reason) IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS.\n\nThus, ONE of the two pillars, on which the Protestant cause had been\nestablished, was happily restored. And, though Mr. Mede, about the\nsame time, succeeded as well in his attempts to replace the OTHER,\nyet, through many concurring prejudices, the merit of that service\nhath not, hitherto, been so generally acknowledged. Whether _the Pope\nbe the Antichrist of the prophets_, is still by some Protestants made\na question. Yet, it seems as if it would not continue very long to be\nso: And it may not be too much to expect, that this institution will,\nhereafter, contribute to put an end to the dispute.\n\nThe Reformation will, then, be secured against the two invidious\ncharges of SCHISM and HERESY (for _neither_ of which is there any\nground, if _the Pope be Antichrist_, and if _the sole Rule of faith\nto a Christian be the canonical scriptures_) and will, thus, stand\nimmoveably on its ancient and proper foundations.\n\nIn saying this, I do not, however, mean to assert, that the Reformation\nhas no support, but in this principle\u2014_that the Pope is Antichrist_.\nThere are various other considerations, which are decisive in the\ncontroversy between us and the Papists. So that, if the prophecies\nshould, after all, be found to suit any other person or power, better\nthan the Roman Pontif, we shall only have one argument the less to\nurge against his pretensions, and the Protestant cause, in the mean\ntime, stands secure. But, on the supposition that the prophecies are\nrightly, and must be exclusively, applied to the church of Rome (of\nwhich every man will judge for himself, from the evidence hereafter to\nbe laid before him) on this supposition, I say, it must be allowed that\nthe shortest and best defence of the Protestant cause is that which is\ntaken from the authority of those prophecies, because they expressly\nenjoin a separation from that society, to which they are applied.\n\nYe perceive, then, in all views, the utility of studying this prophecy\nof the _Revelations_, provided there be reason to admit the completion\nof it in the history of the Christian Church, and particularly in the\nhistory of Papal Rome. The _importance_ and the _truth_ of Christianity\nwill be seen in their full light\u2014The _wisdom_ of the divine councils,\nin _permitting the Apostacy to take place for a time_, will be\nacknowledged\u2014And the _honour_ of our common _Protestant profession_\nwill be effectually maintained.\n\n\n  CONCLUSION.\n\nThis Lecture is now brought down to that point, from which, possibly,\nye expected me to set out. But, in the entrance on an argument, new\nto many persons, and misunderstood by most, it seemed expedient to\ntake a wide compass. The true _scriptural idea_ of the subject, was\nto be opened, at large[243]; the _general argument_ from prophecy,\nenforced[244]; the _method_ of the prophetic system deduced, and\nfurther illustrated in a view of the prophecies more immediately\nrespecting the Christian church[245]; Of _these_ prophecies, those\nconcerning _Antichrist, or the apostasy of Papal Rome_, were to be\ncleared of all prejudices and objections[246]; and the _principles_, on\nwhich the _Apocalyptic_ prophecies, in particular, are to be explained,\nproposed and justified[247]: It was, further, necessary to bespeak\nyour attention to the _argument_ from the Apocalyptic prophecies,\nespecially, concerning Antichrist, by shewing the several presumptions\nthere are of its _force_[248]; and by setting before you the _uses_,\nto which this whole inquiry may be applied[249].\n\nThis preliminary course, then, though it has been tedious, will not\nbe thought improper, if it may serve, in any degree, to prepare and\nfacilitate the execution of the main design, which is, _To interpret\nand apply particular prophecies_: A work, of labour indeed; but not\nunpleasant in itself; and (if carried on with that diligence and\nsobriety, which are, in reason, to be supposed) capable, I think, of\naffording to fair and attentive minds the fullest satisfaction.\n\nThe SEASON, I know, may be thought unfavourable to such an attempt.\nFor the main stress must be laid on prophecies, about which Christians\nthemselves are not agreed, at a time when the number of those persons\nis supposed to be very great, and increasing every day, who are not\neasily brought to acknowledge the reality of _any_ prophecies.\n\nThis _last_ would be an unwelcome consideration, if the fact were\ncertain; I mean, if the present state of religion were altogether\nsuch as some, perhaps, wish, and as others too easily apprehend, it\nto be. But I hope, and believe, it is not; the truth of the case, so\nfar as I am able to form a judgment of it, being no more than this.\nA few fashionable men make a noise in the world; and this clamour,\nbeing echoed on all sides from the shallow circles of their admirers,\nmisleads the unwary into an opinion, that the irreligious spirit is\nuniversal and uncontroulable. Whereas, the good and wise, are modest\nand reserved: having no doubt themselves concerning the foundation of\ntheir faith, they pay but little regard to the cavils, which empty or\ncorrupt men throw out against it. They either treat those cavils with a\nsilent contempt; or, they lament in secret the libertinism of the age,\nwithout taking any vigorous measures to check and oppose it. Besides,\nthey rarely come into what is called, _free company_; and they are too\nwell employed, and at the same time too well informed, to hearken after\nevery idle publication, on the side of irreligion.\n\nFor these, and the like reasons, the number of true believers is\noverlooked; or thought to be less considerable than, in fact, it is,\nand would presently be known to be, if a just estimate were taken of\nthem.\n\nLet me then, under this persuasion, express myself in the spirit, and\nalmost in the words, of an ancient apologist[250]\u2014\u201cLet no man too\nhastily despair of the cause, we are now pleading. When we stand up in\nits defence, there are those who will lend an ear to us. For, whatever\nthe vain, or the vicious may pretend, the prophetic writings are not\nfallen so low in the esteem of mankind, but that there are numberless\npersons of good sense and serious dispositions, who wish to see the\ntruth of the Gospel confirmed by them; and are ready to embrace that\ntruth, when fairly set before them, and supported by the clear evidence\nof historical testimony and well-interpreted scripture.\u201d\n\nSuch is the language, which I am not afraid to hold to the desponding\nparty among us. But should my confidence, or my candour, transport me\ntoo far, should even _their_ apprehensions be ever so well founded, the\nzeal of those, who preach the Gospel, is not to abate, but to exert\nitself with new vigour under so discouraging a prospect. If there be a\nway left to strike conviction into the hearts of unbelievers, it must\nprobably be, by pressing this great point of prophetic inspiration, and\nby turning their attention on a _miracle_, now wrought, or ready to be\nwrought before their eyes. Or, let the event be what it will, our duty\nis to illustrate the word of prophecy, and to enforce it; to withstand\nthe torrent of infidelity with what success we may, and, if it should\nprevail over all our efforts, to make full proof, at least, of our\nsincerity and good will.\n\nIn the mean time, it becomes all _others_ to retain and cultivate in\nthemselves a respect for the prophetic writings; which either are, or,\nfor any thing that has yet appeared, may be divine. To treat them,\nwithout the fullest conviction of their falshood, with neglect and\nscorn, is plainly indecent, and may be highly criminal and dangerous.\n\nJosephus tells us, that, in the last dreadful ruin of his unhappy\ncountrymen, it was familiar with them, _to make a jest of divine\nthings, and to deride, as so many senseless tales and juggling\nimpostures, the sacred oracles of their prophets_[251]; though they\nwere then fulfilling before their eyes, and even upon themselves.\n\nBut the case, perhaps, is different; and _we_ have no concern, in the\nprophecies concerning Papal Rome.\n\nWhat! Have WE no concern in those prophecies (supposing, I mean, that\nthey are prophecies, at all, and, that there is reason for applying\nthem to the church of Papal Rome). WE, who have but just been delivered\nfrom the more than Egyptian bondage, which they predict; and are,\ntherefore, bound by every tye of interest, of gratitude, and of\ncharity, to assert to ourselves, and to communicate to others, as far\nas we are able, the blessings of _that liberty, wherewith Christ has\nmade us free_[252]. Have WE no concern in the several _uses_, mentioned\nin this discourse; and in many others, which I have not mentioned; it\nbeing well known, that _all inspired scripture_ (of which prophecy\nis so eminent a part) _is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for\ncorrection, for instruction in righteousness_[253]?\n\nOr, supposing that we had no _direct_ concern in these prophecies,\nand supposing, farther, that the divine authority of them was even\n_problematical_; still it may deserve to be considered, I mean, by\nmen the most libertine, who have not yet convinced themselves, by an\nexact and critical inquiry, of their utter falshood and insignificancy;\nI say, it merits the reflexion of all such, That the _contempt_ of\nthe prophecies, under these circumstances, has a natural tendency\nto corrupt the temper and harden the heart. And is there no room to\nquestion, whether this conduct, plainly an _immoral_ conduct, be\nadviseable or safe?\n\nLet us then, on a principle of _self-love_, if not of piety, _keep\nthe sayings of this book_, concerning THE MAN OF SIN. From many\nappearances, the appointed time for the full completion of them may\nnot be very remote. And it becomes our prudence to take heed that we\nbe not found in the number of those, to whom that awful question is\nproposed\u2014_How is it, that ye do not discern the signs of this time?_\n\nNay, there are prophecies, which, in that case, may concern us\nmore nearly, than we think. St. Paul applied ONE of these, to the\nunbelieving Jews; of whose mockery, and of whose fate, ye have heared\nwhat their own historian witnesseth: And, if _we_ equal their obdurate\nspirit, _that_ prophecy may clearly be _applied_, and no man can say,\nthat it was not _intended_ to be applied, to _ourselves_.\n\n_Beware therefore_ (to sum up all in the tremendous words of the\nApostle[254]) _Beware, lest that come upon you, which is spoken by the\nProphets_: BEHOLD, YE DESPISERS, AND WONDER AND PERISH; FOR I WORK A\nWORK IN YOUR DAYS, A WORK, WHICH YE SHALL IN NO WISE UNDERSTAND, THOUGH\nA MAN DECLARE IT UNTO YOU.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX:\n\nCONTAINING\n\nAN ANONYMOUS LETTER\n\nTO THE AUTHOR OF THESE SERMONS,\n\nWITH HIS ANSWER TO IT.\n\n\nSoon after I had published this volume, I received an anonymous Letter,\naddressed to me at Thurcaston, of which the following is an exact copy.\n\n\nLETTER TO DR. HURD.\n\nSIR,\n\nSome months ago it was reported, that Dr. Hurd was preparing to expound\nthe Apocalypsis, and once more to prove the Pope to be Antichrist. The\npublic were amazed. By the gay and by the busy world, the very attempt\nwas treated as an object of ridicule. Polite scholars lamented, that\nyou should be prevailed on to give up your more solid and liberal\nstudies, for such obscure and unprofitable researches. Your own\nbrethren of the church hinted, that it would be far more prudent to\nobserve a respectful silence with regard to those awful and invidious\nmysteries. A more than common share of merit was requisite to surmount\nsuch adverse prejudices. Your Sermons, Sir, have been perused with\npleasure by many, who had the strongest dislike to the name and\nsubject. Every one has admired the vastness of the plan, the harmony\nof the proportions, and the elegance of the ornaments; and if any have\nremarked a weakness in the foundations, it has been imputed to the\nnature of the ground; and the taste of the Patron has been arraigned\nrather than the skill of the Architect.\n\nSince you have undertaken the care and defence of this extensive\nprovince, I may be allowed, less as an opponent than as a disciple,\nto propose to you a few difficulties; about which I have sought more\nconviction than I have hitherto obtained. From the general cast of your\nwritings, I flatter myself that I am speaking to a candid critic, and\nto a philosophical divine; whose first passion is the love of truth. On\nthis pleasing supposition, let me venture to ask you, \u201c_Whether, there\nis sufficient evidence that the Book of Daniel is really as ancient as\nit pretends to be._\u201d You are sensible, that from this point the Golden\nChain of Prophecy, which you have let down from Heaven to earth, is\npartly suspended.\n\nThere are two reasons which still force me to with-hold my assent.\nI. The author of the Book of Daniel is too well informed of the\nrevolutions of the Persian and Macedonian empires, which are supposed\nto have happened long after his death. II. He is too ignorant of\nthe transactions of his own times. In a word, he is too exact for a\nProphet, and too fabulous for a contemporary historian.\n\nI. The first of these objections was urged, fifteen hundred years ago,\nby the celebrated Porphyry. He not only frankly acknowledged, but\ncarefully illustrated the distinct and accurate series of history,\ncontained in the book of Daniel, as far as the death of Antiochus\nEpiphanes; for beyond that period, the author seems to have had no\nother guide than the dim and shadowy light of conjecture. The four\nempires are clearly delineated, the expedition of Xerxes into Greece,\nthe rapid conquest of Persia by Alexander, his untimely death without\nposterity, the division of his vast monarchy into four kingdoms,\none of which, Egypt, is mentioned by name, their various wars and\nintermarriages, the persecution of Antiochus, the prophanation of the\nTemple, and the invincible arms of the Romans, are described with as\nmuch perspicuity in the prophecies of Daniel, as in the histories\nof Justin and Diodorus. From such a perfect resemblance, the artful\ninfidel would infer, that both were alike composed after the event.\nThis conduct has supplied St. Jerom with a fund of learning, and an\noccasion of triumph; as if the philosopher, oppressed by the force\nof truth, had unwarily furnished arms for his own defeat. Yet,\nnotwithstanding Jerom\u2019s confidence, and in spite of my inclination to\nside with the father, rather than with the adversary of the church; the\nreasoning of the latter may I fear be justified by the rules of logic\nand criticism.\n\nMay I not assume as a principle equally consonant to experience, to\nreason, and even to true religion; \u201cThat we ought not to admit any\nthing as the immediate work of God, which can possibly be the work of\nman; and that whatever is said to deviate from the ordinary course of\nnature, should be ascribed to accident, to fraud, or to fiction; till\nwe are fully satisfied, that it lies beyond the reach of those causes?\u201d\nIf we cast away this buckler, the blind fury of superstition, from\nevery age of the world, and from every corner of the globe, will invade\nus naked and unarmed.\n\nThe eager trembling curiosity of mankind has ever wished to penetrate\ninto futurity; nor is there perhaps any country, where enthusiasm\nand knavery have not pretended to satisfy this anxious craving of\nthe human heart. These self-inspired prophets have strove by various\narts to supply the want of a divine mission. Sometimes adapting their\nconjectures to the present situation of things, and to the passions and\nprejudices of those, for whom their oracles were intended, they have\ninvolved themselves in the mystic veil of dark, general, and ambiguous\nmetaphors: and embracing an indefinite space, they have trusted to\ntime and fortune for the accomplishment of their predictions, or to\nthe industry of kind commentators for a favourable interpretation of\nthem. Sometimes they have commenced prophets, and even true prophets at\na very easy rate, by delivering the narrative of things already past\nunder the name of some celebrated character of a distant age. As the\nseries of events gradually unfolds itself, those which the supposed\nancient could have read only in the book of fate, are transcribed by\nthe more enlightened modern from any common history.\n\nVirgil (the example is innocent and unexceptionable) has left us\nspecimens of both these prophetic arts: I have often wondered at the\nrashness of critics who have tryed to ascertain the subject of the\nfourth Eclogue, and to point out the wonderful infant, the restorer\nof a golden age. That modest and judicious Poet would not surely have\nrisked the smallest part of his reputation, on the miscarriage of a\nwoman, or the precarious life of a child. The picture is richly, nay\nprofusely coloured; but the design is traced with so vague a pencil,\nthat it might adapt itself to any events or to any interpretation;\nthat it might equally suit a literal or an allegorical sense; the son\nof Pollio, of Antony, or of Augustus; the restoration of liberty, or\nthe tranquillity of the world under one master. Far different are the\nprophecies delivered to \u00c6neas concerning the fate and fortunes of his\ndescendants. The Trojan hero is indulged with a full and distinct view\nof the most remote futurity; and the visionary prospect is closed\nby the mournful apparition of a youth, who would have rivalled the\ngreatest of his ancestors, had not the gods envied _such_ virtues to\nRome and to mankind.\n\nFrom this single remark, we should think ourselves authorized to\ninfer, that Virgil lived in the Augustan age; and that the sixth\nbook was composed during the yet recent grief for the loss of young\nMarcellus. The Poet indeed meant not to deceive us: like the author of\nthe Persian Letters, or of the Moral Dialogues, his only aim was to\nconvey important truths under the pleasing cover of fiction. But had\nVirgil seriously pretended, that his sketch of the Roman history was\na faithful transcript from an old Sibylline oracle; had Augustus from\nmotives of policy favoured the deceit, and had the Romans adopted it\nwith religious respect; would any man of sense want better evidence of\nthe pious fraud, than the very clearness and precision of the prophecy?\nThe unanimous judgment passed on the yet extant collection of the\nSibylline Oracles affords an easy answer to this question. Every critic\nwho has observed that their prophetic light ceases with the reign of\nHadrian, has pronounced them without hesitation to be a forgery of that\nperiod.\n\nHowever, as no Christian can dispute the reality of Divine Inspiration,\nnor any philosopher deny the possibility of it; the suspicion, that a\nprophecy too clear and precise was composed after the event, though\nextremely strong, is capable of being removed by still stronger\npositive evidence. Without insisting on any fanciful or impracticable\nconditions, we have (I think) a right to expect, that the existence of\nsuch a prophecy prior to its accomplishment should be proved, by the\nknowledge of it being generally diffused amongst an enlightened nation,\nprevious to that period; and its public existence attested, by an\nunbroken chain of authentic writers. Till such evidence is produced, we\nmay fairly sit down in a calm and well-grounded scepticism.\n\nI have endeavoured to form something like this chain of witnesses\nin favour of the Book of Daniel; but without being able to carry it\nhigher than the first century of the Christian \u00e6ra. Josephus seems\nto expatiate with pleasure on the praises of that great man; whose\ncharacter, in some instances, he proposed as a model for his own. He\ncelebrates the various merit of Daniel, as a statesman, a prophet, and\neven as an architect. His prophetic writings (says Josephus) which are\nstill extant, evince his familiar intercourse with the Deity, and\nhis perfect knowledge of futurity. He even possessed some material\nadvantages above the rest of his inspired brethren; not contented\nwith declaring future events, he ascertains the time when they were\nto happen; and instead of announcing calamities, he is most commonly\nthe messenger of good news. The rise and fall of successive empires so\nclearly described and so punctually accomplished, ought to convince\nthe disciples of Epicurus, that human affairs, instead of being left\nto the blind impulsion of chance, are pre-ordained by an all-directing\nProvidence. Nothing can be desired fuller or more honourable for Daniel\nthan this testimony of the Jewish historian. I am only concerned that\nhe did not publish his Antiquities till the ninety-third year of the\nChristian \u00e6ra; two hundred and fifty-seven years after the death of\nAntiochus Epiphanes, and more than six centuries later than the time,\nin which the Prophet is supposed to have flourished.\n\nII. The Book of Daniel is partly of the prophetic and partly of the\nhistoric kind. With the account of his visions, the author mixes the\nmemoirs of his life; which lies the more open to our inspection, as it\nwas spent, not like those of the other Prophets in caves and deserts,\nbut in the courts of princes and the great transactions of the world.\nThree incidents are more particularly mentioned: that he was educated\nwith many other captive youths, among the Eunuchs of Nebuchadnezzar;\nthat he was promoted by that prince to the government of Babylon for\nthe interpretation of a dream; and that, under the reign of Darius the\nMede, he was appointed the first of the three ministers or vizirs of\nthe empire; and was soon after exposed to the most imminent danger,\nby the malice of his enemies, the impudence of his sovereign, and\nhis own pious constancy. To the first of these incidents I am so far\nfrom forming any objection, that it seems to me, in the true style\nof the oriental customs in war and government. But the two last are\nembarrassed with difficulties, from which I have not been able to\nextricate myself.\n\n1. Although the most unfrequented paths have sometimes conducted the\nfavourites of fortune to wealth and honours: yet I much doubt, whether\nany man has been appointed a great officer of state for his skill in\ndivination. In the time of Chardin, the Persian astrologers possessed\nas much credit at the court of the Sophis, as the Chaldeans could\npossibly obtain in that of Babylon; and both king and people paid\nthe most implicit obedience to their predictions. Two astrologers\nconstantly attended the Royal Person; nor was any measure adopted,\nhowever trifling or however important, without the previous sanction\nof these ministers of fate; who cost the state annually above four\nmillions of French money. But notwithstanding they were thus highly\nfavoured and respected, they were still confined within their own\nprovince; nor is there any instance of the Sovereign chusing his\nministers, his generals, or his judges, amongst that class of men; the\nbest qualified, as it should seem, for action, since they were the best\nacquainted with the consequences of their actions. The common sense\nof mankind has constantly preferred the mere human accomplishments of\ncourage, capacity, and experience. The Roman augurs indeed presided\nin the senate, and led forth the armies of the common-wealth; but in\nthis single exception, the sacerdotal was grafted on the political\ncharacter. The first citizens, after rising gradually through the\nhonours, and great offices of their country, were at length admitted to\nplay the most powerful engine of the aristocracy.\n\n2. I am disposed to believe that the subsequent merit of Daniel might\njustify the Monarch\u2019s caprice. I will allow, (on the credit of the\nstory of Susanna and the elders) that there never was a Judge of hands\nmore clean, or of a more discerning eye; and that, in his ministerial\ncapacity, he was ever attentive to the public interest, and careless of\nhis own. I cannot deny, that Daniel, as a favourite, as a stranger, and\nas an honest man, must have the whole court of Babylon for his enemies;\nand am very sensible, that in the administration of a great empire,\nthe purest virtue and the most shining abilities may afford room for\nmisrepresentation and calumny. How often must the great Sully have\nyielded to those arts of courts, had he not possessed a sure resource\nin the sound understanding and generous heart of his friend and\nmaster! The situation of the Jewish and of the Huguenot Minister were\nsomewhat similar. Both were issued from an oppressed race of obstinate\nsectaries; and it might be deemed a very artful contrivance to invent\nsome test, which must force them to relinquish their place, or their\nprinciples; to forfeit the favour of their prince, or the confidence of\ntheir party. Thus far the comparison is tolerably exact. But the French\nministers were well assured that the fate and innocence of Sully would\nbe left to the common order of providence. The courtiers of Darius must\napprehend, that the piety of Daniel would be asserted by a miraculous\ninterposition. The people of Babylon, not many years before, had beheld\nthe wonderful deliverance of Daniel\u2019s friends from the fiery furnace;\nand it would have been a strange project for these crafty statesmen, a\nsecond time to provoke the jealous God of Israel, to exalt the glory of\ntheir enemy, and to draw down destruction on their own heads.\n\nThis age indeed, to whom the gift of miracles has been refused, is\napt to wonder at the indifference with which they were received by\nthe ancient world. Instead of the instant terror, lasting conviction,\nand implicit obedience, we might rationally expect; the Jews as well\nas the Gentiles conducted themselves, as if they neither remembered\nnor believed the miracles to which they were witnesses. Although the\nhand of the Almighty was almost perpetually employed in tracing out\nthose divine characters; they were no sooner formed, than they were\nobliterated from the minds of men. It may possibly be alledged, that\nfaith was distracted by the multiplicity of false as well as of genuine\nmiracles; whilst even the patrimony of the Lord was encompassed by\nrival deities.\n\n            \u2014\u2014Who from the pit of hell,\n    Roaming to seek their prey on earth, durst fix\n    Their seats long after next the seat of God;\n    Their altars by his altar; Gods ador\u2019d\n    Among the nations round; and durst abide\n    Jehovah thund\u2019ring out of Sion, thron\u2019d\n    Betwixt the Cherubim\u2014\u2014\n\nBut this solution is more proper, I am afraid, to aggravate than to\nalleviate the pressure of the difficulty. Counterfeit money may pass\ncurrent with the true; since both are coined by human hands and human\nindustry: But I have always considered Salmoneus imitating Jove\u2019s\nthunder by rattling with a brazen chariot over a brazen bridge, as the\nmost contemptible legend in the whole compass of the Grecian mythology.\n\n3. The law of the Medes and Persians is represented as a constitutional\nsanction, which put it out of Darius\u2019s power to revoke his rash\nedict. Such legal restraints are the natural offspring of free\ngovernments; but ill suit with the genius of Asiatic despotism. From\nthe inaccessible solitude of a seven-fold palace the king of the Medes\ndisposed without controul of the lives and property of his subjects:\nnor does there exist a more dreadful act of authority, than the\nretaliation inflicted by Darius on Daniel\u2019s enemies; who, to the number\nof a hundred and twenty, were cast, with their wives and children, into\nthe den of lions. If the Persians enjoyed any degree of freedom among\ntheir mountains, they became at the same time slaves and conquerors;\nand a formal determination of their judges stands recorded by\nHerodotus. \u201cThat it was lawful for the king to do whatever he pleased.\nThere are indeed some instances, where a wise despot will check\nhimself, and a foolish one will find himself checked by the nature of\nthings. Such institutions as are derived from Divine authority, ancient\ncustom, or general opinion, cannot be shaken without endangering the\nfoundations of his own throne. But it would be truly unaccountable,\nthat his cooler reason should not be permitted to correct the passion\nor surprize of a moment; and that the occasional declarations of\nhis pleasure should not be annihilated by the same authority, which\nproduced them. May I not assert, that the Greek writers who have so\ncopiously treated of the affairs of Persia, have not left us the\nsmallest vestige of a restraint, equally injurious to the monarch, and\nprejudicial to the people?\u201d\n\n4. The edict of Darius, \u201cthat during thirty days, whosoever should\nask any petition of either god or man, save only of the king, should\nbe cast into the den of lions,\u201d implied an almost total suspension\nof religious worship; which consists much more in prayer than in\nthanksgiving. Such an extraordinary interdict, by depriving the people\nof the comforts, and the priests of the profits of religion, must have\ndiffused a general discontent throughout his empire; which might easily\nhave been inflamed into sedition and civil war. With what colours\ncould the ministers of Darius gloss over a measure big with every\nmischief, and destitute of the smallest advantage? In what language\ncould they address themselves to the reason, or even to the passions\nof their Sovereign; who is described to be of an advanced age, and a\nlover of justice and moderation? But is there any character, which,\nwith the utmost latitude of supposition, may account for this edict?\nAn irreligious prince may be indiscreet enough to treat with ridicule\nwhatever is held sacred by his subjects; but he will entertain too\ngreat a contempt both for the people, and for popular superstition,\never to think of forcibly separating them from each other. The bigot is\nactuated by a warmer principle than the infidel; but his attachment\nto his own mode of worship rises in proportion to his hatred of all\nothers. Had Darius, as a disciple of Zoroaster, shut up the temples\nof the idolaters, he would have directed the fires of the Magi to\nhave blazed with redoubled ardour. Even those tyrants who, destitute\nof human virtues, have aspired to divine honours, have grafted their\npretensions on the established religions. To be seated between Castor\nand Pollux, to obtain the embraces of the Moon, to confer with Jupiter\nof the Capitol, and to place his image in the temple of Jerusalem,\nwould have gratified the wildest ambition of Caligula. But to suspend\nduring thirty days the most universal propensity of mankind, is a\nstrain of wanton despotism unparalleled in the history of the world;\nfor the interdicts of the Popes were of a quite different nature.\nThey were not the arbitrary prohibitions of a temporal monarch; but a\nchastisement, inflicted by the vicegerent of Christ, who excluded the\noffenders from the benefits of Christianity, till they had satisfied\nthe Deity, offended in the person of his ministers.\n\n5. There yet remains a stronger, or at least a more palpable objection,\nagainst the veracity of the author of the book of Daniel: \u201cThe high\nprobability that Darius the Mede never existed; or, what amounts to\nthe same, that no prince of that name or nation reigned at Babylon,\nbetween the time of Nebuchadnezzar and that of Cyrus.\u201d It would be to\nlittle purpose to expatiate on the uncertainty of ancient history,\nand the careless vanity of the Greek writers. The outlines of the\nhistory of Babylon are known to us with uncommon precision. The Canon\nof Ptolemy contains the stories of its kings, deduced from authentic\nrecords, attested by astronomical observations, and confirmed by the\nfragments of Berosus, which are still extant in Josephus. Berosus\ndescribes the conquests and buildings of Nebuchadnezzar, and only omits\nto mention the metamorphosis of that monarch into an ox. His three\nimmediate successors, were of his own family; the fourth, Nabonadius,\nwas a Babylonian raised to the throne by the conspirators who murdered\nhis predecessor; and cast down from it by the victorious arms of Cyrus\nking of Persia. In this close series of the Babylonian and Persian\ndynasties, there cannot be found the smallest interval, which will\nadmit a Median prince.\n\nOf the various expedients devised to elude this difficulty, there is\none only which can deserve our notice; both as the most tolerable in\nitself, and as having been embraced by the chronologists of the most\ndistinguished merit and reputation; by Usher, Prideaux, Sir Isaac\nNewton, &c. In their extreme distress, the Cyaxares of Xenophon offered\nhimself to their imagination, as the properest person to support the\ncharacter of Darius the Mede. For this purpose, they have supposed\nthat he reigned two years over the Babylonian empire; after it had\nbeen subdued by the arms of Cyrus, his nephew and his lieutenant. Such\nis their hypothesis, which falls to the ground if the Cyrop\u00e6dia is a\nromance; and is overthrown by it, should that noble performance be\nreceived as a genuine history.\n\n1. Without insisting on the opinion of Plato and Tully, I would\nrather appeal to your own feelings; as I cannot doubt your familiar\nacquaintance with the writings of the Attic Bee. Compare the Anabasis\nwith the Cyrop\u00e6dia; and _feel_ the difference between truth and\nfiction; between the lively and copious variety of the one, and the\nelegant poverty of the other. A few general incidents, thinly scattered\nthrough a diffuse work, and destitute of any notes of geography or\nchronology, compose the life of Cyrus; which seems lost in a multitude\nof speeches, councils, reflections, and familiar episodes. Xenophon\nwas a philosopher and a soldier; and if we unravel with any care the\nfine texture of the Cyrop\u00e6dia, we shall discover in every thread the\nSpartan discipline and the philosophy of Socrates. The only part\nwhich has the air of real history, is the judicious digression, where\nXenophon compares the degeneracy of the modern Persians with the wise\ninstitutions of their founder. He possessed the best opportunities of\nexamining both the one and the other, whilst he served in the camp\nof the younger Cyrus, and traversed, with the immortal ten thousand,\nthe greatest part of the provinces of Artaxerxes. The first Cyrus was\nconfessedly a great man. The conquest of Asia is a sufficient testimony\nof his abilities; and the name of Father given him by the Persians\nafter his death, must stand as the surest evidence of his virtues. But\nthe hero of the Cyrop\u00e6dia is drawn as a _perfect character_; a monster\nas fabulous, and less interesting than those of Ariosto. His wise\ncouncils are never, in a single instance, seduced by passion, misled by\nerror, or disappointed by accident. Xenophon labours to establish the\nempire of prudence; his countryman Herodotus had entertained himself\nwith displaying the tyranny of fortune; and both writers, whilst they\ninculcate the moral precept, seem alike, though by opposite paths, to\ndeviate from historic truth.\n\n2. But if the Cyrop\u00e6dia be admitted as a genuine history, Darius the\nMede is still excluded from the throne of Babylon, since Cyaxares\nhimself never ascended it. When the Cyrus of Xenophon besieged that\ngreat city, he had gradually shaken off all dependance on his uncle,\nand assumed to himself the supreme command, and exclusive advantages of\nthe war. The strength of his army consisted of seventy thousand natural\nPersians, solely attached to their hereditary prince, from every motive\nof duty, gratitude, and interest. He was followed by a various train of\nnations, allies and subjects, all subdued by his arms and policy. About\nforty thousand Medes, who served under his banners, had long since been\ntaught to despise the weakness, and to disobey the commands of their\nsovereign. After the conquest, Cyrus was solemnly inaugurated king of\nBabylon, with every circumstance of pomp and greatness, which could\ndazzle the eyes of the multitude. Some time afterwards he visited his\nuncle at Ecbatana, presented him with rich gifts, the spoils of Asia,\naccepted his only daughter in marriage, and very politely told the King\nof the Medes, that he had set apart for him, one of the finest palaces\nof Babylon; that whenever he should chuse to come to that city, he\nmight find himself, _as if he were still in his own dominions_.\n\nIf these observations are founded in truth and nature; it will\nfollow, that the author of the Book of Daniel has entertained us with\nincredible stories, which happened under an imaginary monarch. So much\nerror and so much fiction are incompatible with an inspired, or even\nwith a contemporary, writer. But if the prophecies were framed three\nor four centuries after the Prophet\u2019s death, it was much easier for\nthe counterfeit Daniel to _foretel_ great and recent events, than to\ncompose an accurate history or probable romance of a dark and remote\nperiod.\n\nThe question is curious in itself, important in its consequences,\nand in every light worthy the attention of a critical divine. This\nconsideration justifies the freedom of my address, and the hopes I\nstill entertain, that you may be able and willing to dispell the mist,\nthat hangs, either over my eyes, or over the subject itself. On my\nside, I can only promise, that whatever you shall think proper to\ncommunicate, shall be received with the candor which I owe to myself,\nand with the deference, so justly due to your name and abilities,\n\n  I am, Sir,\n  with great esteem,\n  your obedient humble servant,\n                   \u2014\u2014\n\nP.S. You will be pleased, Sir, to address your answer _To Daniel\nFreeman, Esq. at the Cocoa Tree, Pall Mall_: but if you have any\nscruple of engaging with a mask, I am ready, by the same channel, to\ndisclose my real name and place of abode; and to pledge myself for the\nsame _discretion_, which, in my turn, I shall have a right to expect.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI had neither leisure nor inclination to enter into controversy with\nthis stranger (for which there was the less occasion, as he had\ndisputed no principle or opinion advanced by me in the Sermons); but,\nas I knew, whoever he was, that he would complain, or rather _boast_,\nof being wholly unnoticed by me, I sent him this answer.\n\n\n  ANSWER TO THE FOREGOING LETTER.\n\n  _Thurcaston, August 29, 1772._\n\nSIR,\n\nYour very elegant letter on the antiquity and authenticity of the Book\nof Daniel (just now received) finds me here, if not without leisure,\nyet without books, and therefore in no condition to enter far into\nthe depths of this controversy; which indeed is the less necessary,\nas every thing, that relates to the subject, will come, of course,\nto be considered by my learned successors in the new Lecture. For,\nas the prophecies of Daniel make an important link in _that chain,\nwhich_, as you say, _has been let down from heaven to earth_ (but not\nby the Author of the late Sermons, who brought into view only what he\nhad found, not invented) the grounds, on which their authority rests,\nwill, without doubt, be carefully examined, and, as I suppose, firmly\nestablished.\n\nBut, in the mean time, and to make at least some small return for the\ncivility of your address to me, I beg leave to trouble you with two\nor three short remarks, such as occur to me, on the sudden, in reading\nyour letter.\n\nYour main difficulties are these two: 1. That the author of the Book\nof Daniel is too clear for a prophet; as appears from his prediction\nof the Persian and Macedonian affairs: And 2. too fabulous for a\ncontemporary historian; as is evident, you suppose, from his mistakes,\nchiefly, I think, in the vith chapter.\n\n1. The first of these difficulties is an extraordinary one. For why\nmay not prophecy, if the Inspirer think fit, be as clear as history?\nScriptural prophecy, whence your idea of its obscurity is taken,\nis _occasionally_ thus clear, I mean after the event: And Daniel\u2019s\nprophecy of the revolutions in the Grecian empire would have been\nobscure enough to Porphyry himself, before it.\n\nBut your opinion, after all, when you come to explain yourself, really\nis, as one should expect, that, as a prophet, Daniel is not clear\nenough: for you enforce the old objection of Porphyry by observing,\nThat, where a pretended prophecy is clear to a certain point of time,\nand afterwards obscure and shadowy, there common sense leads one to\nconclude that the author of it is an impostor.\n\nThis reasoning is plausible, but not conclusive, unless it be taken for\ngranted that a prophecy must, in all its parts, be equally clear and\nprecise: whereas, on the supposition of real inspiration, it may be\nfit, I mean it may suit with the views of the Inspirer, to predict some\nthings with more perspicuity, and in terms more obviously and directly\napplicable to the events in which they are fulfilled, than others. But,\nfurther, this reasoning, whatever force it may have, has no place here;\nat least, you evidently beg the question when you urge it; because the\npersons, you dispute against, maintain, That the subsequent prophecies\nof Daniel are equally distinct with the preceding ones concerning the\nPersian and Macedonian empires, at least so much of them as they take\nto have been fulfilled, and that, to judge of the rest, we must wait\nfor the completion of them.\n\nHowever, you admit that the suspicion arising from the _clearest_\nprophecy may be removed by direct positive evidence that it was\ncomposed before the event. But then you carry your notions of that\nevidence very far, when you require \u201cthat the existence of such a\nprophecy prior to the accomplishment should be proved by the knowledge\nof it being generally diffused amongst an enlightened nation, previous\nto that period, and its public existence attested by an unbroken chain\nof authentic writers.\u201d\n\nWhat you here claim as a matter of _right_, is, without question, very\ndesirable, but should, I think, be accepted, if it be given at all, as\na matter of courtesy. For what you describe is the utmost evidence that\nthe case admits: but what right have we, in this or any other subject\nwhether of natural or revealed religion, to the utmost evidence? Is\nit not enough that the evidence be sufficient to induce a reasonable\nassent? And is not that assent reasonable, which is paid to real\nevidence, though of an inferior kind, when uncontrouled by any greater?\nAnd such evidence we clearly have for the authenticity of the book of\nDaniel, in the reception of it, by the Jewish nation, down to the time\nof Jesus, whose appeal to it supposes and implies that reception to\nhave been constant and general: Not to observe that the testimony of\nJesus is further supported by all the considerations that are alledged\nfor his own divine character. To this evidence, which is positive so\nfar as it goes, you have nothing to oppose, but surmise and conjecture,\nthat is, nothing that deserves to be called evidence. But I doubt, Sir,\nyou take for granted, that the claim of inspiration is never to be\nallowed, so long as there is a possibility of supposing that it was not\ngiven.\n\nII. In the second division of your Letter, which is longer and more\nlaboured than the first, you endeavour to shew that the _historical_\npart of the book of Daniel, chiefly that of the sixth chapter, is false\nand fabulous, and, as such, confutes and overturns the _prophetical_.\nWhat you say on this head is contained under _five_ articles.\n\n1. You think it strange that Daniel, or any other man, should be\nadvanced to a great office of state, _for his skill in divination_.\n\nBut here, first, you forget that Joseph was thus advanced, and for the\nsame reason: Or, if you object to this instance, what should hinder the\nadvancement either of Joseph or Daniel (when their skill in divination\nhad once brought them into the notice and favour of their sovereign)\nfor what you call _mere human accomplishments_? For such assuredly\nboth these great men possessed, if we may believe the plain part of\ntheir story, which asserts of Joseph, and indeed proves, that he was,\nin no common degree, _discreet and wise_; and of Daniel, that _an\nexcellent spirit was found in him_, nay that he had _knowledge and\nskill in all learning and wisdom_, over and above his _understanding\nin all visions and dreams_. In short, Sir, though princes of old might\nnot make it a rule to chuse their ministers out of their soothsayers,\nyet neither would their being soothsayers, if they were otherwise\nwell accomplished, prevent them from being ministers: Just as in\nmodern times, though churchmen have not often, I will suppose, been\nmade officers of state, even by bigotted princes, because they were\nchurchmen, yet neither have they been always set aside from serving in\nthose stations, when they have been found eminently qualified for them.\n\n2. Your next exception is, That a combination could scarce have been\nformed in the court of Babylon against the favourite minister (though\nsuch factions are common in other courts) because the courtiers of\nDarius _must have apprehended that the piety of Daniel would be\nasserted by a miraculous interposition_; of which they had seen a\nstriking instance. And here, Sir, you expatiate with a little too much\ncomplacency on the strange indifference which the ancient world shewed\nto the gift of miracles. You do not, I dare say, expect a serious\nanswer to this charge; Or, if you do, it may be enough to observe,\nwhat I am sure your own reading and experience must have rendered very\nfamiliar to you, that the strongest belief or conviction of the mind\nperpetually gives way to the inflamed selfish passions; and that, when\nmen have any scheme of interest or revenge much at heart, they are not\nrestrained from pursuing it, though the scaffold and the axe stand\nbefore them in full view, and have perhaps been streaming but the day\nbefore with the blood of other state-criminals. I ask not, whether\nmiracles have ever _actually_ existed, but whether you do not think\nthat multitudes have been firmly _persuaded_ of their existence: And\ntheir indifference about them is a fact which I readily concede to you.\n\n3. Your third criticism is directed against what is said of _the\nlaw of the Medes and Persians, that it altereth not_; where I find\nnothing to admire, but the extreme rigour of Asiatic despotism. For I\nconsider this irrevocability of the law, when once promulgated by the\nSovereign, not as contrived to be a check on his will, but rather\nto shew the irresistible and fatal course of it. And this idea was\nso much cherished by the despots of Persia, that, rather than revoke\nthe iniquitous law, obtained by surprize, for exterminating the Jews,\nAhasuerus took the part, as we read in the book of Esther, (and as\nBaron Montesquieu, I remember, observes) to permit the Jews to defend\nthemselves against the execution of it. Whence we see how consistent\nthis law is with the determination of the Judges, quoted by you\nfrom Herodotus\u2014\u201cThat it was lawful for the King to do whatever he\n_pleased_\u201d\u2014for we understand, that he did not please, that his law,\nwhen once declared by him, should be altered.\n\nYou add, under this head, \u201cMay I not assert, that the Greek writers,\nwho have so copiously treated of the affairs of Persia, have not left\nus the smallest vestige of a restraint, equally injurious to the\nmonarch, and prejudicial to the people?\u201d I have not the Greek writers\nby me to consult; but a common book I chance to have at hand, refers\nme to one such vestige in a very eminent Greek Historian, Diodorus\nSiculus. Lowth\u2019s Comm. in loc.\n\n4. A fourth objection to the historic truth of the book of Daniel is\ntaken, with more plausibility, from the matter of this law, which,\nas you truly observe, was very strange for the King\u2019s councillors to\nadvise, and for any despot whatsoever to enact.\n\nBut 1. I a little question whether prayer was so constant and\nconsiderable a part of Pagan worship, as is supposed; and, if it was\nnot, the prejudices of the people would not be so much shocked by\nthis interdict, as we are ready to think. Daniel indeed prayed three\ntimes a day: but the idolaters might content themselves with praying\nnow and then at a stated solemnity. It is clear that when you speak\nof _depriving men of the comforts, and the priests of the profits of\nreligion_, you have Christian and even modern principles and manners\nin your eye: perhaps, in the _comforts_, you represented to yourself\na company of poor inflamed Huguenots under persecution; and, in the\n_profits_, the lucrative trade of Popish masses. But, be this as it\nmay, it should be considered, 2. that this law could not, in the\nnature of the thing, suppress all prayer, if the people had any great\npropensity to it. It could not suppress _mental_ prayer: it could not\neven suppress _bodily worship_, if performed, as it easily might be, in\nthe night, or in secret. Daniel, it was well known, was used to pray\nin open day-light, and in a place exposed to inspection from his usual\nmanner of praying; which manner, it was easily concluded, so zealous\na votary, as he was, would not change or discontinue, on account of\nthe edict. Lastly, though the edict passed for thirty days, to make\nsure work, yet there was no doubt but the end proposed would be soon\naccomplished, and then it was not likely that much care would be taken\nabout the observance of it.\n\nAll this put together, I can very well conceive that extreme envy and\nmalice in the courtiers might suggest the idea of such a law, and that\nan impotent despot might be flattered by it. Certainly, if what we read\nin the third chapter be admitted, That _one_ of these despots required\nall people, nations, and languages to worship his image on pain of\ndeath, there is no great wonder that _another_ of them should demand\nthe exclusive worship of himself, for a month[255]; nay perhaps he\nmight think himself civil, and even bounteous to his gods, when he left\nthem a share of the other eleven. For, as to the presumption\u2014\n\n          \u2014\u2014Nihil est quod credere de se\n    Non possit, cui laudatur Diis \u00e6qua potestas.\n\n5. A fifth, and what you seem to think the strongest objection to the\ncredit of the book of Daniel, is, \u201cThat no such person, as Darius the\nMede, is to be found in the succession of the Babylonish princes [You\nmean, as given in Ptolemy\u2019s Canon and the Greek writers] between the\ntime of Nebuchadnezzar and that of Cyrus.\u201d\n\nIn saying this, you do not forget, nor disown, what our ablest\nchronologers have said on the subject: But then you object, that\nXenophon\u2019s Cyaxares has been made, (to serve a turn) to personate\nDarius the Mede, and yet that Xenophon\u2019s book, whether it be a romance,\nor a true history, overturns the use which they have made of this\nhypothesis.\n\n1. I permit myself, perhaps, to be too much flattered by your civility\nin referring me to my own taste, rather than to the authority of\nCicero: But the truth is, I am much disposed to agree with you, \u201cthat,\nif we unravel with any care the fine texture of the Cyrop\u00e6dia, we shall\ndiscover in every thread the Spartan discipline and the philosophy of\nSocrates.\u201d But then, as the judicious author chose to make so recent\na story as that of Cyrus, and so well known, the vehicle of his\npolitical and moral instructions, he would be sure to keep up to the\n_truth_ of the story, as far as might be; especially in the leading\nfacts, and in the principal persons, as we may say, of the drama. This\nobvious rule of decorum such a writer, as Xenophon, could not fail to\nobserve: And therefore, on the supposition that his Cyrop\u00e6dia is a\nromance, I should conclude certainly that the outline of it was genuine\nhistory.\n\nBut, 2. if it be so, you conclude that there is no ground for thinking\nthat Darius the Mede ever reigned at Babylon, because Cyaxares himself\nnever reigned there.\n\nNow, on the idea of Xenophon\u2019s book being a romance, there might be\ngood reason for the author\u2019s taking no notice of the short reign of\nCyaxares; which would break the unity of his work, and divert the\nreader\u2019s attention too much from the hero of it: while yet the omission\ncould hardly seem to violate historic truth, since the lustre of his\nhero\u2019s fame, and the real power which, out of question, he reserved\nto himself, would make us easily forget or overlook Cyaxares. But, as\nto the _fact_, it seems no way incredible, that Cyrus should concede\nto his royal ally, his uncle, and his father-in-law (for he was all\nthese) the _nominal_ possession of the sovereignty\u2014or that he should\n_share_ the sovereignty with him\u2014or, at least, that he should leave\nthe _administration_, as we say, in his hands at Babylon, while he\nhimself was prosecuting his other conquests at a distance. Any of these\nthings is supposable enough; and I would rather admit any of them, than\nreject the express, the repeated, the circumstantial testimony of a not\nconfessedly fabulous historian.\n\nAfter all, Sir, I doubt, I should forfeit your good opinion, if I did\nnot acknowledge that some, at least, of the circumstances, which you\nhave pointed out, are such as one should hardly expect at first sight.\nBut then such is the condition of things in this world; and what is\n_true_ in human life is not always, I had almost said, not often, that\nwhich was to be previously expected: whence, an indifferent romance\nis, they say, more _probable_ than the best history. But should any\nor all of these circumstances convince you perfectly that some degree\nof error or fiction is to be found in the book of Daniel, it would be\ntoo precipitate to conclude that therefore the whole book was of no\nauthority. For, at most, you could but infer, that the historical part,\nin which those circumstances are observed, namely the sixth chapter,\nis not genuine: Just as hath been adjudged, you know, of some other\npieces, which formerly made a part of the book of Daniel. For it is\nnot with these collections, which go under the name of the prophets,\nas with some regularly connected system, where a charge of falsehood,\nif made good against one part of it, shakes the credit of the whole.\nFictitious histories may have been joined with true prophecies, when\nall that bore the name of the same person, or any way related to him,\ncame to be put together in the same volume: But the detection of such\nmisalliance could not affect the prophecies, certainly not those of\nDaniel, which respect _the latter times_; for these have an intrinsic\nevidence in themselves, and assert their own authenticity in proportion\nas we see, or have reason to admit, the accomplishment of them.\n\nAnd now, Sir, I have only to commit these hasty reflections to your\ncandour; a virtue, which cannot be separated from the love of truth,\nand of which I observe many traces in your agreeable letter. And\nif you would indulge this quality still further, so as to conceive\nthe possibility of that being _true and reasonable_, in matters of\nreligion, which may seem strange, or, to so lively a fancy as your\u2019s,\neven ridiculous, you would not hurt the credit of your excellent\nunderstanding, and would thus remove one, perhaps a principal, occasion\nof _those mists which_, as you complain, _hang over these nice and\ndifficult subjects_.\n\n  I am, with true respect,\n  Sir, &c.\n  R. H.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI should not perhaps have thought it worth while to print either of\nthese Letters, if a noble person had not made it necessary for me to\ngive the _former_ to the publick, by doing this honour (though without\nmy leave or knowledge) to the _latter_. By which means, however, we\nare now at length informed (after the secret had been kept for twice\ntwelve years) that the anonymous Letter-writer was Edward Gibbon, Esq.\nafterwards the well-known author of \u201cThe History of the _Decline and\nFall of the Roman Empire_[256].\u201d\n\nOf Mr. Gibbon\u2019s Letter to me, I have no more to say: And of his\n_History_, only what may be expressed in few words.\n\nIt shews him, without doubt, to have possessed parts, industry,\nand learning; each in a degree that might have entitled him to a\nrespectable place among the compilers of ancient history. But these\ntalents were disgraced, and the fruit of them blasted, by a FALSE TASTE\nOF COMPOSITION: that is, by _a raised, laboured, ostentatious style_;\neffort in writing being mistaken, as it commonly is, for energy\u2014by _a\nperpetual affectation of wit, irony, and satire_; generally misapplied;\nand always out of place, being wholly unsuited to the historic\ncharacter\u2014and, what is worse, by a _free-thinking libertine spirit_;\nwhich spares neither morals nor religion; and must make every honest\nman regard him as a bad citizen, as well as writer.\n\nThese miscarriages may, all of them, be traced up to one common cause,\nan EXCESSIVE VANITY.\n\nMr. Gibbon survived, but a short time, his favourite work. Yet he lived\nlong enough to know that the most and best of his readers were much\nunsatisfied with him. And a few years more may, not improbably, leave\nhim without one admirer.\u2014Such is the fate of those, who will write\nthemselves into fame, in defiance of all the principles of true taste,\nand of true wisdom!\n\n  R. W.\n\n  _Hartlebury Castle, Nov. 18, 1796._\n\n\nTHE END OF THE FIFTH VOLUME.\n\n\nPrinted by J. Nichols and Son,\nRed Lion Passage, Fleet-Street, London.\n\n\nErrata:\n\nP. 365, l. 9. for _two_ read _too_.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] This noble and eminent person was the second son of the Lord\nChancellor Hardwicke. He had been, for many years, in the first\nreputation at the Bar; and having passed through the offices of\nSollicitor and Attorney General, was, himself, made Lord Chancellor\nin January 1770, but died soon after his appointment to that high\ndignity\u2014_Luctuosum hoc suis; acerbum patri\u00e6; grave bonis omnibus_.\n\n[2] The Society _have_ given leave that this Lecture be preached in\ntheir Chapel, and on the days specified.\n\n[3] Thus Celsus represents the Jews\u2014\u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2,\n\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. ORIG. contra\nCELS. _l._ iv. _p._ 181. _ed. Spenc. Cantab. 1677_. And in _p._ 175,\nhe represents it as the highest absurdity in such _reptiles_ to\npretend that their insignificant concerns were the objects of divine\nprediction, and that the supreme Governor of the world, who had so many\ngreater things upon his hands, should be only solicitous, as it were,\nto keep up a perpetual intercourse with them. See the whole passage,\nwhich the philosopher seems to have taken a pleasure to work up with\nmuch oratorical amplification.\u2014Julian, too, was much pleased with this\nfoolish objection.\n\n[4] _Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as\nthe dust of the balance._ Isaiah xl. 15.\n\n[5] Si dii sint, est divinatio.\n\n[6] Si divinatio sit, dii sunt.\n\n[7] These objections were long since urged by Celsus, who speaks\nof the Jewish and Christian oracles, as _fanatical, uncertain, and\nobscure_, _l._ vii. _p._ 338\u2014\u1f04\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03db\u03c1\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f04\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1,\n\u1f67\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f00\u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd. as _applicable to other subjects besides those to which they\nwere referred_\u2014\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9. _l._ i. _p._ 39.\u2014nay, _as much more\napplicable to others, than to Jesus_\u2014\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u1f22 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6. _l._ ii. _p._ 78.\n\n[8] Utrum tandem, per deos atque homines, magis verisimile est,\n_vesanum remigem_, aut aliquem nostr\u00fbm, qui ibi tum eramus, _me,\nCatonem, Varronem, Coponium_ ipsum, concilia deorum immortalium\nperspicere potuisse? _Cic. Div._ l. ii. c. 55.\n\n[9] Illud etiam requiro, cur, si deus ista visa nobis providendi caus\u00e2\ndat, non _vigilantibus_ potius dat qu\u00e0m _dormientibus_? l. ii. c. 61.\n\n[10] Jam ver\u00f2 quid opus est _circuitione et amfractu_, ut sit utendum\ninterpretibus somniorum, poti\u00f9s qu\u00e0m _directo_? _Ibid._\n\n[11]\n\n    \u039f\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u2019. \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6, \u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb7\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1ff6.\n          Soph. Oedip. Tyran. ver. 577.\n\n[12] Quod est enim criminis genus, aut rei esse alicujus ignarum, aut\nipsum, quod nescias, sine aliqu\u00e2 profiteri dissimulatione nescire? aut\nuter magis videtur irrisione esse dignissimus vobis, qui sibi scientiam\nnullam tenebros\u00e6 rei alicujus assumit, an ille, qui retur se ex se\napertissim\u00e8 scire id, quod humanam transiliat notionem, et quod sit\nc\u00e6cis obscuritatibus involutum?\n                                     _Arnobius_, _adv. Gen._ l. ii.\n\n[13] 1 Cor. ii. 11.\n\n[14] St. Matthew, vi. 22.\n\n[15] \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u2014_the testimony of, or concerning Jesus_,\nnot\u2014_the testimony given by Jesus_.\n\nThe _former_ appears to be the sense, for the following reasons.\n\n1. The point asserted, is, \u201cThat the Angel, who had delivered this\nillustrious prophecy, was _the fellow-servant of John_, and not of\nJohn only, but _of those who have the testimony of Jesus_.\u201d The proof\nis\u2014_for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus_\u2014i. e. the\nend of prophecy is to bear testimony, or, to do honour, to Jesus;\ntherefore, I, says the Angel, who am endowed with this prophetic\nspirit, am but employed, as thou art; who, in thy character of Apostle\nor Evangelist, hast received the same general commission, namely, to\nbear testimony, or to do honour, to Jesus. See Acts x. 42. We are,\ntherefore, _fellow-servants_, or joint labourers in the same cause.\nAll this is clear and well-reasoned. But, now, take the words\u2014_the\ntestimony of Jesus_\u2014in the sense of\u2014_the testimony given by\nJesus_\u2014and how does the Angel\u2019s having _the spirit of prophecy_, prove\nhim to be _a fellow-servant of John_? for the reason assigned will then\nstand thus\u2014_for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony which Jesus\ngives of himself_. The inference is, that the Angel was a true prophet.\nAgain: how is the Angel proved, in this way, to be _the fellow-servant\nof those who have the testimony of Jesus_? Why, thus; the Angel had the\nspirit of prophecy, and prophecy was the gift of Christ; therefore he\nwas the fellow-servant of those, who had the same gift, i. e. who were\nprophets. Without doubt. But why so strange a way of proving so plain\na point? It had been enough to say\u2014_I am a prophet, as others are_.\nStill, what was this to St. John? who, in this place, is not sustaining\nthe character of a prophet; for the worship he was inclined to pay the\nAngel was on account of the Angel\u2019s being, what himself was not, _a\nprophet_.\n\nTurn it which way you will, the reasoning is frivolous, or\ninconsequent. I conclude therefore, that not _this_, but the _other_\ninterpretation gives the true sense of\u2014_the testimony of Jesus_.\n\n2. To speak of _prophecy_ under the idea of _a testimony to, or\nconcerning Jesus_, is conforming to the true scriptural idea of that\ngift. Thus we are told that\u2014_to him_ [i. e. to Jesus] _give all the\nprophets witness_\u2014\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, Acts x. 43.\n_Prophecy_, therefore, being the thing here spoken of, is rightly\ncalled the testimony, or witness to, or concerning Jesus.\n\n3. Lastly, the construction is fully justified, 1. by observing that\nthe genitive case [as here \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6] is frequently used in scripture,\nnot actively, but passively. See a variety of instances in Mede, p.\n626, where he explains \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd: And 2. by referring the\nreader to the following passage of St. Paul, where the very expression\nof the text is so used\u2014\u03bc\u1f74 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u1fc7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u2014clearly, _be not ashamed of bearing testimony to our Lord_, 2\nTim. i. 8.\u2014and to Rev. i. 9. where the Apostle tells us, he was in\nthe isle of Patmos\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03db\u03bf\u1fe6\u2014_on account of his having been faithful in preaching\nthe word of God, and in bearing testimony to Jesus Christ_\u2014and still\nmore plainly, if possible, and indubitably, by referring him to Rev.\nxii. 17. where, speaking of the Dragon, he says, he went in wrath\nto make war on those, _which keep the commandments of God, and have\nthe testimony of Jesus Christ_\u2014\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03db\u03bf\u1fe6: for these objects of the\nDragon\u2019s fury are properly, THE WITNESSES, those faithful servants of\ntruth, who suffered for the courageous and persevering _testimony_,\nthey gave, in evil times, to Jesus Christ, and to his pure religion.\n\nOn the whole, there cannot be the least doubt of the interpretation\nhere given of this famous text. The _expression_ fairly admits this\ninterpretation; and (what the true critic will regard most) the _scope_\nof the place, or pertinence of the reasoning, addressed to St. John,\nadmits no other.\n\n[16] John v. 39.\n\n[17] Luke xxiv. 27.\n\n[18] Acts iii. 18.\n\n[19] Acts iii. 24. See also Acts x. 43. 1 Pet. i. 10.\n\n[20] See especially the Epistles to the _Hebrews_, and _Galatians_.\n\n[21] Acts xxvi. 22. See farther, Acts xxviii. 23. Rom. iii. 21. Eph.\nii. 19, &c.\n\n[22] Rev. x. 7.\n\n[23] DR. MIDDLETON\u2019S _Works_, vol. III. p. 137. London, 1752, 4to.\n\n[24] Though by _Moses_, is here meant, not the prophecies of Moses\nonly, but the _books_ of Moses, containing those former prophecies,\nwhich, as St. Peter says, had been delivered, _since the world began_.\n\n[25] DR. MIDDLETON, p. 139.\n\n[26] D. L. Vol. V. p. 288. Lond. 1765.\n\n[27] Gal. iii. 24.\u2014\u1f41 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03db\u03cc\u03bd\u2014\n\n[28] Coloss. ii. 17. Hence, St. Austin affirms roundly, \u201cThat, to such\nas consider the genius of the revealed system, the Old Testament must\nappear a continued prophecy of the New.\u201d\u2014_Vetus Testamentum_, rect\u00e8\n_sentientibus_, PROPHETIA _est Novi Testamenti_ [_contr. Faustum_, l.\nxv.]: and St. Jerom speaks of it as a generally-received maxim, \u201cThat\nit is the manner of sacred scripture, to deliver, beforehand, the truth\nof futurity, in types\u201d\u2014_hunc esse morem scriptur\u00e6 sanct\u00e6 ut futurorum\nveritatem pr\u00e6mittat_, in TYPIS [Hieron. T. III. 1127.]\u2014I know,\nthat the ancient Fathers, and from them many moderns, have exposed\nthemselves to much and deserved censure, by pursuing this principle\ntoo minutely and superstitiously, in their mystical and allegorical\ncomments on the Jewish scriptures. But men of sense will consider,\nthat a principle is not therefore to be rejected, because it has been\nabused. For instance, that the Passover was instituted with a reference\nto the sacrifice of Christ, that the paschal Lamb was, in the language\nof St. Austin, a _prophecy_, or, in that of St. Jerom, a _type_, of\nthe lamb of God, will seem highly credible to one who considers the\naptness of the correspondence in two related parts of the same system:\nBut, that the famous Law in Deuteronomy, concerning the marriage of a\nbrother\u2019s widow, was _prophetic_, or _typical_ of the duty, incumbent\non the ministers of the Gospel, to espouse the widowed church of\nChrist, is certainly much less clear, and will scarcely be admitted\neven on the authority of St. Austin.\u2014Hoc ipsum\u2014quod uxorem fratris ad\nhoc frater jussus est ducere, ut non sibi, sed illi sobolem suscitaret,\nejusque vocaret nomine, quod inde nasceretur: quid aliud _in figur\u00e2\npr\u00e6monstrat_, nisi quia unusquisque Evangelii pr\u00e6dicator ita debet\nin Ecclesi\u00e2 laborare, ut defuncto fratri, hoc est Christo, suscitet\nsemen, qui pro nobis mortuus est, et quod suscitatum fuerit, ejus nomen\naccipiat? _Contr. Faustum_, l. 32.\u2014St. Austin might, perhaps, say\nfor himself, that he had an example of this practice in the mystical\ncomments of St. Paul: it may be so: but an _example_, followed without\nwarrant, in this instance, by the learned Father, and, not improbably,\nill understood by him.\n\n[29] Adv. of Learning, B. II.\n\n[30] DR. MIDDLETON, _Works_, vol. III. p. 177. _London_, 1752, 4to.\n\n[31] DR. MIDDLETON, vol. III. p. 177.\n\n[32] See further on this subject, D. L. vol. V. p. 290.\n\n[33] Quand UN SEUL HOMME auroit fait un livre des pr\u00e9dictions de Jesus\nChrist pour le tems et pour la maniere, et que Jesus Christ seroit venu\nconform\u00e9ment \u00e0 ces propheties, ce seroit une force infinie. Mais il y\na bien plus ici. C\u2019est une SUITE D\u2019HOMMES durant quatre mille ans, qui\nconstamment & sans variation viennent l\u2019un ensuite de l\u2019autre pr\u00e9dire\nce m\u00eame av\u00e9nement. C\u2019est UN PEUPLE TOUT ENTIER qui l\u2019annonce, et qui\nsubsiste pendant quatre mille ann\u00e9es, pour rendre EN CORPS t\u00e9moignage\ndes assurances qu\u2019ils en ont, & dont ils ne peuvent \u00eatre detourn\u00e9s par\nquelques menaces et quelque persecution qu\u2019on leur fasse: CECI EST TOUT\nAUTREMENT CONSIDERABLE.\n                                                                Pascal.\n\n[34] See the passage before referred to in Serm. I. p. 6.\n\n[35] Daniel, c. ii.\n\n[36] Est autem Quaternio iste regnorum Danielis (quod imprimis\nobservari velim) CHRONOLOGIA QU\u00c6DAM PROPHETICA, non tam annorum\nqu\u00e0m regnorum intervallis distincta, ubi regnorum in pr\u00e6cipu\u00e2 orbis\nterrarum parte, simul ecclesiam et populum Dei complex\u00e2, sibi invicem\nsuccedentium serie, monstratur tempus quo Christi regnum \u00e0 tot seculis\npromissum et prim\u00f9m inchoandum sit, idemque demum certis temporibus\nconsummandum.\n\n\u2014Ex his, qu\u00e6 dicta sunt, ratio elucet, quare, ex omnibus mundi regnis,\nquatuor h\u00e6c sola selegit Spiritus sanctus, quorum fata tam insigni\nornaret propheti\u00e2; nempe quia ex his solis inter omnia mundi regna\nperiodus temporum ejusmodi contexi potuit, qua rect\u00e2 serie et ordinat\u00e2\nsuccessione perduceret ad tempora et momenta regni Christi. Non ver\u00f2\nquia nulla istis paria imperia, forsan et aliquibus majora, per omnia\nsecula orbis visurus esset. Nam neque Saracenorum ol\u00edm, neque hodie\nTurcarum, neque Tartarorum regna ditionis amplitudine Persico aut\nGr\u00e6co, puto nec Assyrio, quicquam concedunt; im\u00f2, ni fallor, excedunt.\n                             MEDE\u2019S Works, B. III. p. 712. Lond. 1672.\n\n[37] To this purpose the late learned and ingenious author of the\n_Discourses on Prophecy_\u2014\u201cA figurative and dark description of\na future event will be figurative and dark still, when the event\nhappens.\u201d And again\u2014\u201cNo event can make a figurative or metaphorical\nexpression to be a plain or literal one.\u201d Bishop Sherlock, _Disc._ II.\np. 32 and 36. London, 1749.\n\n[38] Le dessein de Dieu est plus de perfectionner la volont\u00e9, que\nl\u2019esprit. Or, la clart\u00e9 parfaite ne serviroit qu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019esprit, & nuiroit\n\u00e0 la volont\u00e9. Pascal.\n\n[39] Rom. iv. 17.\n\n[40] \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f35\u03bd\u2019, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03db\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b9\u03db\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u1fc7.\n                             J. MARTYR, _Apol._ I. c. 74.\n\n[41] Yet hear in how decisive a tone a certain writer, of no small\naccount with the infidel party, reprobates this argument:\u2014\u201cJe dis\nde plus, qu\u2019aucune proph\u00e9tie ne sauroit faire autorit\u00e9 pour moi.\u201d\n[Rousseau, \u0152uvres, T. III. p. 156. La Haye, 1762.] \u201cI say,\u201d says Mr.\nRousseau, \u201cthat the argument from prophecy can have no weight with\nme.\u201d If you ask his reason, it follows. \u201cBecause, to give it any\nauthority, three conditions are required, the concurrence of which is\nimpossible. First, I must have been, myself, a witness of the prophecy,\nwhen delivered. Secondly, I must have been, myself; a witness of the\nevent: And lastly, I must have it demonstrated to me that the agreement\nbetween the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous. For\nthough the prophecy were clearer, and more precise, than a geometrical\naxiom, yet as the clearness of a prediction, made at hazard, does\nnot render the accomplishment of it impossible, this accomplishment,\nallowing it to take place, proves nothing, strictly speaking, in favour\nof the person who foretold it.\u201d\n\nFirst, he says, _He must himself have been a witness of the prophecy_.\nBut why so? Is there no way of being reasonably assured that a prophecy\nhas been delivered, unless one has been actually present at the\ndelivery of it? Does any one doubt, whether Socrates told his friend\nthat he should die within three days\u2019 time, because he did not hear\nthese words from the mouth of the philosopher? But, there is less\nreason still to doubt whether Jesus uttered the prophecies, ascribed to\nhim in the Gospel.\n\nNext, _He must have been, himself, a witness of the event_. With just\nas good reason, as of the prophecy. However, it so happens that we\nare, or may be, if we please, witnesses of the events, foretold in\nmany prophecies. What does he think of the dispersion of the Jews, for\ninstance? Is he not a witness of this event?\n\nBut lastly, _He must have it demonstrated to him that the agreement\nbetween the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous_.\nWhat, will nothing less than _demonstration_ satisfy him? Will not\na high degree of probability serve him to form a conclusion upon,\nnay, and to regulate his conduct? And will he stand out against the\nstrongest degree of evidence, short of mathematical, or a proof _\u00e0 la\nrigueur_, as he terms it, in a subject, where, from the nature of it,\nmathematical certainty is not to be had?\n\nSurely one needs be no great philosopher to see that all which is\nwanting to give authority to the argument from prophecy, is, That we\nhave _reason_ to admit the delivery of a prediction\u2014that we have\n_reason_ to admit the completion of it\u2014and that we have reason\nto think the agreement between the prediction and the event not\nfortuitous. And where is the impossibility that these three reasons\nshould concur?\u2014It is plain that the only one of these three reasons\nthat appears in any degree problematical is the last concerning the\ncompletion of a prophecy in its event, whether it be fortuitous or\nnot. Have I not reason then to say, as I do below p. 81, 82, that the\nstrength of the infidel cause lies in this last consideration?\u2014But\nwhat that strength is, we shall see as we go along.\n\n[42] Socrates foretold that he should _dye within three days_: and the\nevent followed.\u2014_Est apud Platonem Socrates, c\u00f9m esset in custodi\u00e2\npublic\u00e2, dicens Critoni suo familiari, sibi post tertium diem esse\nmoriendum\u2014quod, ut est dictum, sic scribitur contigisse_ [Cic. de\nDiv. l. i. c. 25.] Jesus foretold that he should suffer death by\n_crucifixion_. [John iii. 14. viii. 28. xii. 32.] He, likewise,\nforetold that he should _rise from the dead_, within _three days_ after\nhis crucifixion. [John ii. 19. Matth. xii. 39, 40.]\u2014The _first_ of\nthese predictions might be a sagacious conjecture. Can it be said of\nsuch, as the _two last_,\u2014\n\n    _Augurium, ratio est, et conjectura futuri_?\n                    Ovid. Trist. l. I. viii. 51.\n\n[43] Hoc si est in libris, in _quem hominem_, et in _quod tempus_ est?\nCallid\u00e8 enim, qui illa composuit, perfecit, ut, quodcunque accidisset,\npr\u00e6dictum videretur, _hominum et temporum definitione sublat\u00e2_\u2014said,\nin discredit of the Sibylline oracles [_De Div._ l. ii. p. 295. _fol.\nLutet._ 1565]: how far applicable to the scriptural prophecies, will be\nseen in its place.\n\n[44] \u0394\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f01\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. And again\u2014\u03bf\u1f31 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5.\nAristot. Rhet. l. iii. c. v.\n\n[45] Permultorum exemplorum et nostra plena est respublica, et omnia\nregna, omnesque populi, cunct\u00e6que gentes, augurum pr\u00e6dictis multa\nincredibiliter vera cecidisse.\n                                      _Cic. de Leg._ l. ii. p. 337.\n\n[46]\n    Certabant, urbem Romam, Remoramne vocarent.\n    Omnibu\u2019 cura viris, uter esset induperator.\n\n    Cedunt de c\u0153lo ter quatuor corpora sancta\n    Avium, pr\u00e6petibus sese, pulchrisque locis dant.\n    Conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse priora,\n    Auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque.\n                      _Cic. de Div._ l. i. c. 48.\n\n[47] Quot s\u00e6cula urbi Rom\u00e6 debeantur, dicere meum non est: sed, quid\napud Varronem legerim, non tacebo. Qui libro Antiquitatum duodevicesimo\nait, fuisse Vettium Rom\u00e6 in augurio non ignobilem, ingenio magno,\ncuivis docto in disceptando parem; eum se audisse dicentem: Si ita\nesset, ut traderent historici, de Romuli urbis condend\u00e6 auguriis, ac\n_duodecim vulturibus_; quoniam CXX annos incolumis pr\u00e6teriisset populus\nRomanus, ad _mille et ducentos_ perventurum.\n              CENSORINUS _de die natali_, c. xvii. p. 97. Cantab. 1695.\n\n[48] Hence Sidonius, in personating the city of Rome, makes her ask\u2014\n\n    Quid, rogo, _bis seno_ mihi _vulture_ Thuscus aruspex\n    _Portendit_?\n                                    Sidon. Carm. vii. 55.\n\nAnd again, addressing himself to the same city,\n\n    Jam prop\u00e8 fata _tui bissenas vulturis alas_\n    Complebant (scis namque tuos, scis, _Roma_, labores.)\n                                            Ib. ver. 358.\n\nAnd, before him, Claudian, to the same purpose\u2014\n\n    Tunc reputant annos, _interceptoque volatu\n    Vulturis_, incidunt properatis s\u00e6cula metis.\n                                 B. G. ver. 262.\n\n[49] Medea, ver. 374.\n\n[50] _Annis seris._\n\n[51] Ferdinand.\n\n[52] _Casu_, inquis. It\u00e1ne ver\u00f2 quicquam potest esse _casu_ factum,\nquod omnes habet in se numeros veritatis? Quatuor tali jacti, _casu_\nVenereum efficiunt. Num etiam centum Venereos, si CCCC talos jeceris,\n_casu_ futuros putas? _De Div._ l. i. p. 259, Lutet. 1565.\u2014Had the\nsupposed case been fairly applied to the subject, there had been an\nend of the dispute; as may appear from the pitiful answer, made in the\nnext book to this reasoning\u2014dixisti multa de _casu_: ut, Venereum jaci\nposse casu, quatuor talis jactis; quadringentis, centum Venereos non\nposse casu consistere. Prim\u00f9m, NESCIO, CUR NON POSSINT.\u2014Was this, like\na philosopher?\n\n[53] Multa vera, inquit, evadere. Quid, qu\u00f2d multo plura, falsa? N\u00f3nne\nipsa varietas, qu\u00e6 est propria fortun\u00e6, fortunam esse causam, non\nnaturam, docet? _De Div._ l. ii. p. 295. This, methinks, looks like\nsense.\n\n[54] See the ancient apologists, who are frequent and large on this\nsubject; and, of the moderns, see especially Huetii _Dem. Evang.\nProp._ IX.\u2014Bishop Kidder\u2019s _Dem. of the Messias_, c. ii. p. 17,\n18. London, 1726, fol.\u2014Dr. Clarke\u2019s _Evidences of Nat. and Rev.\nReligion_.\u2014_Pens\u00e9es de M. Pascal_, p. 108.\n\n[55] I take these examples to be more in point, than those given by\nBishop Butler in his _Analogy_, P. II c. vii. p. 386. Lond. 1740: not\nbut those, too, have their weight.\n\n[56] Grotius.\n\n[57] Serm. II.\n\n[58] \u1f08\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Luke i. 70.\n\n[59] This use and intent of prophecy was seen, and admirably expressed,\nby the great _M. Pascal_\u2014\u201cLes propheties sont m\u00eal\u00e9es de propheties\nparticulieres, et de celles du Messie, afin que les propheties\ndu Messie ne fussent pas sans _preuves_, et que les propheties\nparticulieres ne fussent pas sans _fruit_.\u201d _Pens\u00e9es_, p. 112.\n\n[60] _The Lord himself shall give you a sign_, Isai. vii. 14.\u2014This\nSIGN (and the extraordinary introduction of it, in the words quoted,\nindicates no less) had plainly a recondite and even complicated meaning!\n\n1. As addressed to _Ahaz_, it was simply an ASSURANCE, that his\ndeliverance from his two great enemies was now at hand.\n\n2. As addressed to the _house of David_\u2014_Hear ye now, O house of\nDavid_\u2014it was a TYPE of Christ.\n\n3. It was, farther, a TOKEN, or pledge, that the remote deliverance of\nthe house of David by Immanuel, should hereafter take place, just as\nthe approaching deliverance of Ahaz, by the prophet\u2019s Son, would be\nseen to do.\n\n4. This sign, when fulfilled in the near event, would, thenceforward,\nbecome a PROOF, or evidence, that it would be fulfilled in the remote\none.\n\n5. Lastly, in the Antitype, the sign was a MIRACLE, properly so called.\n\nSo eminently was this Child, a SIGN! A _sign_, in all the _senses_\nof the word, as employed by the Jewish prophets; and to all the\n_purposes_, for which signs were given.\n\n[61] \u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f22\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03af\u03db\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n                     JUSTIN MARTYR, _Apol._ i. c. 87.\n\n[62] Isaiah vii. 16. Daniel ix. 24.\n\n[63] Mal. iv. 5. Luke xvi. 16.\n\n[64] Joel ii. 28, 29.\n\n[65] Is not their case exactly delineated by the prophet\nEzekiel\u2014_Mischief shall come upon mischief, and rumour shall be upon\nrumour; then shall they_ SEEK A VISION OF THE PROPHET; i. e. they shall\nseek what they shall not find, _for the_ LAW _shall perish from the\npriest, and_ COUNCIL _from the ancients_; i. e. their ecclesiastical\nand civil polity, to which prophecy was annexed, shall be utterly\nabolished. See Ezekiel vii. 26. and compare Isaiah iii. 1, 2.\n\n[66] See A. VAN DALE, _de Oraculorum ethnicorum duratione atque\ninteritu_.\n\n[67] The sacred text says\u2014_myriads_\u2014\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f72, \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03db\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u2014Acts xxi. 20.\n\n[68] Acts x.\n\n[69] Acts xiii. 42. 48.\n\n[70] \u03a4\u03af\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f02\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03db\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03db\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd;\n                        JUSTIN MARTYR, _Apol._ i. c. 88.\n\n[71] Acts xv. 18.\n\n[72] Isaiah xl. 21.\n\n[73] We see this design very plainly, in the prophecies of Jesus\nconcerning _his own death and resurrection_; concerning _the descent of\nthe holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost_; concerning _events, that were\nto befall his disciples_; and in other instances.\n\n[74] La plus grande des preuves de Jesus Christ, ce sont les\npropheties. C\u2019est aussi \u00e0 quoi Dieu a la plus pourv\u00fb; car l\u2019evenement,\nqui les a remplies, est un MIRACLE SUBSISTANT depuis la naissance de\nl\u2019Eglise jusqu\u2019 \u00e0 la fin.\n                                                         _M. Pascal._\n\n[75] For these particulars, see Dr. Jortin\u2019s _Rem. on Ecclesiastical\nHistory_, vol. I. p. 20-89.\n\n[76] An event, it must be owned, the more likely to happen, as the Jews\nhad always been disposed to _trust to their high and fenced walls_;\nwhich yet could never defend them from their enemies, as their history\nshews, and, as Moses had distinctly foretold, _Deut._ xxviii. 52.\n\n[77] Matth. xxiv. 28. and compare Luke xvii. 37. \u1f4d\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u1f96 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03af.\u2014Meaning by _eagles_, the standards\nof the Roman army.\u2014Some writers of name have, indeed, observed,\nthat this is only a _proverbial_ expression. True: but proverbial\nprophecies are often fulfilled in the strict literal sense of the\nexpression; as Grotius well observes on Matth. xxvi. 23. h\u00eec quoque\naccidit, quod in _multis aliis vaticiniis_, ut verba\u2014non tant\u00f9m\nsecund\u00f9m proverbialem loquendi modum, sed etiam secund\u00f9m _exactissimam\nverborum significationem_ implerentur.\u2014If the reader calls to mind\nthe prediction of our Lord, as it is elsewhere expressed, without a\nfigure\u2014_when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with_ ARMIES [Luke, xxi.\n20]\u2014and compares it with the _event_, he will hardly make a doubt\nwhether _eagles_, in those figurative predictions, which respect the\nsame subject, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem, were not intended\nby our Lord to denote, the ROMAN armies.\n\n[78] \u2014debellare _superbos_. Virg.\n\n[79] Assuredly this prophecy was not in the number of those, of which\nit hath been said\u2014_The prophecy is not occasioned by the event, but\nthe event by the prophecy\u2014L\u2019evenement n\u2019est pas predit parcequ\u2019il\narrivera; mais il arrive parcequ\u2019il a \u00e9t\u00e9 predit._ ROUSSEAU, _Nouv.\nHel._ t. iv. p. 314. n. Neuf. 1764.\n\n[80] Matth. xvi. 28.\n\n[81] Matth. xxiv. 34.\n\n[82] Luke xxi. 20.\n\n[83] Luke xxi. 18. Acts ii. 21. Mark xiii. 20.\n\n[84] See the learned Bishop Newton\u2019s _Dissertations on the Prophecies_,\nvol. ii, p. 268. n.\n\n[85] Deut. xxviii.\n\n[86] 1 Thess. ii. 16.\n\n[87] Luke xxi. 22. 24.\n\n[88] Rom. xi. 25.\n\n[89] Jer. xlvi. 28.\n\n[90] Isai. i. 21. Ezek. vi. 8.\n\n[91] Lev. xxvi. 44.\n\n[92] Hear the profound and reflecting M. Pascal\u2014L\u2019etat o\u00f9 l\u2019on voit\nles Juifs est une grande preuve de la Religion. Car c\u2019est une chose\n\u00e9tonnante de voir ce peuple _subsister_ depuis tant d\u2019ann\u00e9es, & de\nle voir _toujours miserable_\u2014et, quoique il soit contraire, D\u2019ETRE\nMISERABLE, & DE SUBSISTER, il subsiste neanmoins toujours malgr\u00e9 sa\nmis\u00e8re. PENSEES, p. 115.\n\n[93] \u2014Mult\u00f2 minus nomen criminandum, in captivitate sacratorum suorum,\nqui supernam patriam veraci fide expectantes, _etiam in suis sedibus\nperegrinos se esse noverunt_. _Aug. De Civ. Dei_, l. i. 15.\n\n[94] Jer. xlvi. 28.\n\n[95] Ps. ii. 8.\n\n[96] Mal. i. 2.\n\n[97] Is. xlix. 6.\n\n[98] Mark xvi. 15.\n\n[99] The reader may see many of them collected, and the general\nargument from them well inforced, by Mr. Bullock, in his VINDICATION,\nPart II.\n\n[100] As in the case of _Mahometanism_, for instance.\n\n[101] What the Philosopher Celsus thought of such a project, we learn\nfrom a curious passage in Origen. It being usual with the Christians\nof that time, as of every other, _to pray for the conversion of the\nwhole world to the Christian faith_, the philosopher laughs at the\nextravagance of this petition. He observes upon it, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd. The words are not easily translated. But the\n_meaning_ of them is, That he regarded an universal agreement in one\nmode of religious belief, as a perfect chim\u00e6ra: and the _turn_ of the\nwords is so contrived, as to express the utmost contempt of those, who,\nin their supreme ignorance of mankind, could entertain so senseless an\nidea. _Contr. Celsum_, l. viii. _sub. fin._\n\n[102] Matth. xxiii. 15.\n\n[103] Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a _new\ncovenant_ with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not\naccording to the covenant that I made with their fathers\u2014but this\nshall be my covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after\nthose days, saith the Lord, _I will put my Law in their inward parts,\nand write it in their hearts_, &c. Jer. xxxi. 31-33. See also Jer. iii.\n16.\n\n[104] For behold, _I create new heavens and a new earth_: and the\n_former shall not be remembered nor come into mind_. Is. lxv. 17.\n\n[105] The _Gentiles_ shall see thy righteousness, and all Kings, thy\nglory: And thou shalt be _called by a new name_, which the mouth of the\nLord shall name. Is. lxii. 2.\n\n[106] Is. lx. 22.\n\n[107] Matth. xiii. 31, 32.\n\n[108] Si enim et hostes _exertos_, non tant\u00f9m vindices occultos,\nagere vellemus, _deesset nobis vis numerorum et copiarum_? _Tertull.\nApologet._ c. 37.\n\n[109] Could it be _foreseen_, that nothing of this sort would happen?\nWhen the _Reformation_ was set on foot in Germany, Luther and his\nadherents resolved to carry it on in the spirit of the Gospel, that\nis, by _pacific measures_. But how soon did passion and policy strike\nin, to drive them from this purpose! The Catholics were intolerant:\nthe Reformed grew powerful: and then, what was too naturally to be\nexpected, followed.\n\nIf it be said, that the Gospel hath not been always propagated,\n_without force_; I acknowledge, it has not: but then I observe, 1. that\nit was incontestably so propagated, till the conversion of the Roman\nempire; in which event, alone, the prophecies appear to have had a\nreasonable completion. 2. that the _force employed_, has generally been\nthe force of one Christian sect, directed against some other (in which\nscandalous contentions the prophecies have no concern), not in the\npropagation of Christianity itself in unbelieving countries. 3. that\nthe _way of force_, when professedly used against unbelievers, though,\nin _some_ cases, it has contributed to the enlargement of Christ\u2019s\nkingdom, has yet, in _others_ (where, too, the utmost force and zeal\nwere combined) very signally failed of success; of which the _crusades\nagainst the Mahometans_ afford a striking instance: and 4. lastly,\nthat we expect the _final universal_ prevalence of the Christian faith\nfrom the same spiritual arms only, which were first employed with such\nsuccess in the propagation of it.\n\n[110] An eminent writer, with the view, indeed, of disgracing the\nReformation, hath set this matter in a very just light: \u201cQue nos\nfreres, says he, ouvrent donc les yeux; qu\u2019ils les jettent sur\nl\u2019ancienne Eglise, qui durant tant de si\u00e9cles d\u2019une persecution si\ncruelle ne s\u2019est jamais \u00e9chap\u00e9e, ni un seul moment, ni dans un seul\nhomme, & qu\u2019on a v\u00fb\u00eb aussi so\u00fbmise sous Diocletien, et m\u00eame sous Julien\nl\u2019apostat, lorsqu\u2019elle remplissoit deja toute la terre, que sous Neron\n& sous Domitien, lorsqu\u2019elle ne faisoit que de naitre: C\u2019EST LA QU\u2019ON\nVOIT VERITABLEMENT LE DOIGT DE DIEU.\u201d\n                                 _Hist. des Variations_, l. x. c. 53.\n\n_The finger of God_, as the learned writer says, was indeed conspicuous\nin this conduct of the primitive Christians, because it fulfilled the\nprophecies (so unlikely to be fulfilled) concerning the _manner_ in\nwhich Christianity was to obtain an establishment in the world. If\nthe conduct of the _reformed_ had not this merit, it was because the\nprophecies did not extend to the reformation of Christian religion, but\nto the introduction and first settlement of it. The agents, in this\nlast work of Providence, were therefore left to the natural influence\nof their passions, and they acted too frequently as those passions\nimpelled them.\n\nFor the rest, how far the _general_ precepts of the Gospel require\na passive submission and non-resistance to outrageous intolerance,\nwhether absolutely, and in all cases, is a point of nice discussion;\nin which I take no part, at present, because I am not now making the\napology of the _reformed_, but shewing the completion of the prophecies\nconcerning the _propagators_ of Christianity: and the wonder to see\nthem so punctually completed, is not lessened, but increased, by\nsupposing, that the precepts of the Gospel leave mankind to the free\nuse of their natural rights, in the case of extreme violence and\ninjustice.\n\n[111] _The vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall\nspeak, and not lye: though it tarry, wait for it, because it shall\nsurely come, it will not tarry._ Habakkuk, ii. 3.\n\n[112] By the word _Tyranny_, here and elsewhere in these discourses, as\napplied to the Pope, I would be understood to mean, that _super-eminent\ndominion_, which he exercised, or claimed a _right_ of exercising, over\nthe princes and states of his communion, in all affairs both temporal\nand spiritual.\u2014I use the word (somewhat improperly, perhaps) for\nthe sake of brevity, as I know of no other single term, that so well\nexpresses my meaning.\n\n[113] What is here said of the scriptural division of _time_, with\nregard to the affairs of the _Church_, is enough for my purpose.\nThere is another division of time, in the prophetic scriptures, with\nregard to the _kingdoms of the world_; concerning which the reader may\nconsult BISHOP KIDDER\u2019S _Dem. of the Messiah_, Part iii. ch. ix.; and\nespecially Mr. MEDE\u2019S _Apostasy of the latter times_, ch. xi.\n\n[114] Matth. xxiv. 24. Mark xiii. 21.\n\n[115] 1 Ep. John, iv. 3.\n\n[116] \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03db\u03bf\u03c2\u2014\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, in the sense either of _pro_, or _contra_.\n\n[117] Grotius says, \u201cSicut _Antic\u00e6sarem_ dicimus qui contra C\u00e6sarem\nse C\u00e6sarem vult dici atque C\u00e6sar haberi, sic _Antichristus_ est qui\nse vero Christo opponit _eo modo_ ut ipse Christus haberi velit.\u201d\nOP. t. iv. p. 490.\u2014The learned commentator did not reflect, that\nwords are not always used according to the strict import of their\netymologies. _False Christs_, we will say, are, in the strict sense\nof the word, _Antichrists_. But the question is, in _what_ sense\nthis word is used of the person called, by way of eminence, THE\nANTICHRIST. This must be collected from the attributes given to him\nin the prophecies themselves, not from the rigorous etymology of the\nterm. The case was plainly this. St. John is speaking of the _false\nChrists_, who had appeared in his time; and, to disgrace them the\nmore effectually in the minds of those to whom he writes, he brands\nthem with the name of _Antichrists_: not so much respecting the exact\nsense of the word, as the ideas of aversion, which, he knew, it would\nexcite. For the tradition of the church concerning _Antichrist_,\nhad made this appellation, of all others, the most opprobrious, and\nhateful.\u2014Besides, it is not so clear, as Grotius supposes, that the\nstrict sense of the word, _Antichristus_, must be\u2014_is, qui se vero\nChristo opponit eo modo ut ipse Christus haberi velit_. C\u00e6sar, who\ngenerally expressed himself with exact propriety, thought fit, on a\ncertain occasion, to assume the name and character of, ANTICATO. Was\nit C\u00e6sar\u2019s purpose to say, or was it his ambition to pretend, \u201c_that\nhe opposed himself to the true Cato_, EO MODO _ut ipse_ CATO _haberi\nvellet_?\u201d\n\n[118] Eusebius mentions, JUDAS, H. E. l. vi. c. 2; and DIONYSIUS, E. H.\nl. vii. c. 10.\u2014_Others_, seemed to expect that Antichrist would appear\nas the Messiah of the Jews; but in the person of a Roman Emperor; as\nwill be explained presently. See the next note.\n\n[119] See many citations to this purpose in Dr. Lardner\u2019s _Cred._ p.\nii. v. p. 210, 11, 12.\n\n[120] Jerom, in Dan. vii. Mede, p. 657.\n\n[121] Quisquis se universalem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione\nsu\u00e2 Antichristum pr\u00e6currit. GREG. M. Op. Ep. xxx. l. vi. _Par._ 1533.\n\n[122] In h\u00e2c ejus superbi\u00e2, quid aliud nisi propinqua jam Antichristi\nesse tempora designatur? Ep. xxxiv. l. iv.\n\n[123] With all his merits, Gregory the Great, it is to be feared, had\nsome Antichristian marks upon him; and his adversary of the East might\nhave gone some way towards _fixing_ them upon his _Grandeur_, if he had\nbut observed, that Antichrist, whoever he was, and whensoever to appear\nin the world, is clearly marked out in the prophecies, as having his\nseat in _old Rome_.\n\n[124] A. 991.\n\n[125] Quid hunc, reverendi patres, in sublimi solio residentem, veste\npurpure\u00e2 et aure\u00e2 radiantem; quid hunc, inquam, esse censetis? Nimirum,\nsi charitate destituitur, sol\u00e2que scienti\u00e2 inflatur et extollitur,\nANTICHRISTUS est, _in templo Dei sedens, et se ostendens tanquam sit\nDeus_. USSER. _de Christian. Eccl. successione & statu_, c. ii. p. 36.\nLond. 1613.\u2014ILLYRICI _Cat. Test. Ver._ p. 1558. _Officin. Jacob. Sto\u00ebr\net Jacob. Chou\u00ebl._\u2014This Arnulph, Bishop of Orleans, was esteemed, in\nhis day, the wisest and most eloquent of all the Gallican prelates.\nArnulphus\u2014de quo sic initio ejus synodi scriptum est\u2014_Inter omnes\nGalliarum episcopos sapienti\u00e2 et eloquenti\u00e2 clarissimus habebatur_. Ib.\n\n[126] \u201cEcclesiam vanitatis, & SEDEM SATAN\u00c6 vocabat.\u201d USSER. _de\nChristian. Eccl. succes. & statu_, c. 7. s. xxiv. p. 196.\u2014In\nApocalypsin scripsisse testatur Bostonius Buriensis. CAVE, H. L. vol.\nii. p. 131. _Oxon._ 1743.\n\n[127] Plerique omnes boni, aperti, justi, ingenui, simplices, tum\nimperium Antichristi c\u0153pisse, quod ea qu\u00e6 Christus servator noster\ntot annos ante nobis cantavit, evenisse eo tempore cernebant, memori\u00e6\nliterarum prodid\u00eare. ANNAL. BOIORUM, l. v. p. 591. Ingolstad. 1554.\n\n[128] CAVE, H. L. vol. ii. p. 258. Conc. Flor. 1104. USSER. _De Christ.\nEccl. succ. & stat._ c. v. s. v. p. 109.\n\n[129] MINISTRI CHRISTI SUNT, ET SERVIUNT ANTICHRISTO [_Serm. sup.\nCantic._ xxxiii.]\u2014It is true, by Antichrist, he seems not to mean the\nPope, but, in general, an evil principle, which then domineered in the\nchurch. Yet he refers us to the famous passage in the first Epistle\nto the Thessalonians, ch. ii. And he tells us in his 56th epistle,\nthat he had heard one Norbert, a man of exemplary piety, say, That\nAntichrist would be revealed in that age. Hence it seems probable,\nthat some one person or power was in his eye. After all, he says, that\nNorbert\u2019s reasons did not satisfy him. Yet, in another epistle, he\nasserts expressly\u2014Bestia illa de Apocalypsi, cui datum est os loquens\nblasphemias, et bellum gerere cum sanctis, PETRI CATHEDRAM OCCUPAT,\ntanquam leo paratus ad pr\u00e6dam. Ep. cxxv: which was, in other words,\nto call the Pope, Antichrist. It is evident that St. Bernard applied\nthe prophecies in the Revelation to the successor of St. Peter.\u2014I\nmention these things so particularly, to shew, what his sentiments on\nthis head really were; which have been misrepresented by hasty writers,\nwho transcribe from each other, without examining, themselves, the\nauthorities, they quote.\n\n[130] CAVE, H. L. v. ii. 278. ROG. DE HOVEDEN, ANNAL. _Pars Post._\np. 681. Ed. Franc. 1601.\u2014In this age [XIIth], was composed a very\nremarkable tract on the subject of Antichrist, which may be seen in\nMede\u2019s Works, p. 721.\u2014Mr. Mede supposes, and seems indeed to have\nproved, that the _true_ doctrine of Antichrist was, and was intended to\nbe, a mystery, or secret, till the 12th century. Whence it follows that\nthe testimonies, hitherto alledged, are only passionate or declamatory\nexaggerations, or to be esteemed, as he says, _pro parabolic\u00e8 et_ \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u2019\n\u03b1\u1f54\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd _dictis, declamatorum more_. _Works_, p. 722.\n\nI admit the truth of the observation: but hold, that the _use_ of\nthe deduction, here made, is not in the least affected by it. For\nmy purpose in giving this catalogue of witnesses to the doctrine of\nAntichrist, was not to _justify_ that doctrine, in the _true_, that is,\nProtestant sense of it (for then, not only the preceding testimonies,\nbut even some of the following, would have been omitted) but merely\nto shew that the general, at least, and confused idea of some such\ndoctrine did, in fact, _subsist_ in the ancient Christian church. That\nwhat idea they had of this doctrine was founded on the _prophecies_, is\nclear from the terms in which they express themselves. And, though the\ndoctrine itself was very imperfectly conceived, and inconsequentially\napplied by them, still their language shews that they had some notion\nof _a corrupt spiritual power, which was_, in their sense of the\nprophets, _to domineer in the church of Rome_: whence I draw this\nconclusion (for the sake of which, this whole deduction is made), That\nthe present application of the prophecies concerning Antichrist to\npapal Rome, is not wholly new and unauthorized; as the prejudice, I am\nhere combating, supposeth it to be.\n\n[131] VITRINGA in Apoc. p. 747. Amst. 1719. USSER. De Eccl. succ. &\nstat. c. 6 and 8. THUANUS, l. vi. s. 16. vol. i. p. 221. Ed. Buckley.\n\n[132] See, especially, the famous speech of Everhard, bishop of\nSaltzbourg, at the assembly of Ratisbonne, in the time of Gregory the\nIXth; inserted at large in Aventinus, _Ann. Boior._ l. vii. p. 684. The\nfollowing extracts from it will be thought curious. Hildebrandus ante\nannos centum atque septuaginta primus specie religionis _Antichristi_\nimperii fundamenta jecit. p. 684.\n\nFlamines illi _Babyloni\u00e6_ [meaning the Bishops of Rome] soli regnare\ncupiunt, ferre parem non possunt, non desistent donec omnia pedibus\nsuis conculcaverint, atque _in templo Dei sedeant, extollanturque supra\nomne id, quod colitur_. Ib.\n\nNova consilia sub pectore volutat, ut proprium sibi constituat\nimperium, _leges commutat_, suas sancit; contaminat, diripit, spoliat,\nfraudat, occidit, perditus homo ille (_quem Antichristum vocare\nsolent_) in cujus fronte _contumeli\u00e6 nomen_ scriptum est, \u201cDeus sum,\nerrare non possum,\u201d _in templo Dei sedet_, long\u00e8 lat\u00e9que dominatur.\n_Ib._\n\n\u2014_Reges decem pariter existunt_\u2014_Decem Cornua_\u2014_Cornuque\nparvulum_\u2014Quid h\u00e2c propheti\u00e2 apertius? p. 685.\n\n[133] MATTH. PARIS, ad ann. 1253. p. 874. ed. Watts, 1640.\n\n[134] Purgat. 32.\n\n[135] Epistolarum sine titulo Liber. Ep. xvi. p. 130. Basil.\n1581.\u2014Many strokes in this epistle are, to the last degree, severe\nand caustic. Addressing himself to Rome, \u201cIlla equidem ipsa es, says\nhe, quam in spiritu sacer vidit Evangelista.\u2014Populi et gentes et\nlingu\u00e6, aqu\u00e6 sunt super quas meretrix sedes; recognosce habitum. Mulier\ncircumdata purpur\u00e2, et coccino, et inaurata auro, et lapide pretioso,\net margaritis, habens poculum aureum in manu su\u00e2, plenum abominatione\net immunditi\u00e2 fornicationis ejus.\u2014Audi reliqua. Et vidi (inquit)\nmulierem ebriam de sanguine sanctorum, et de sanguine martyrum Jesu.\nQuid siles?\u201d\u2014And so goes on to apply the prophecies of the Revelation\nto the church of Rome, in terms that furnish out a good comment on the\nfamous verse in one of his poems\u2014\n\n    _Gia Roma, hor Babylonia false \u00e8 ria_\u2014\n\nNumberless passages in the writings of Petrarch speak of Rome, under\nthe name of _Babylon_. But an equal stress is not to be laid on all of\nthese. It should be remembered, that the Popes, in Petrarch\u2019s time,\nresided at Avignon; greatly to the disparagement of themselves, as\nhe thought, and especially of Rome; of which this singular man was\nlittle less than idolatrous. The situation of the place, surrounded by\nwaters, and his splenetic concern for the _exiled_ Church (for under\nthis idea, he painted to himself the Pope\u2019s migration to the banks of\nAvignon) brought to his mind the condition of the Jewish church in\nthe Babylonian captivity. And this parallel was all, perhaps, that he\nmeant to insinuate in most of those passages. But, when he applies the\nprophecies to Rome, as to the _Apocalyptic_ Babylon (as he clearly does\nin the epistle under consideration) his meaning is not equivocal: and\nwe do him but justice to give him an honourable place among the TESTES\nVERITATIS.\n\n[136] See the catalogue of his works in Cave\u2019s Hist. Lit. vol. ii. App.\np. 63; in which is the following book of Dialogues. Dialogorum libri\nquatuor; quorum\u2014quartus Roman\u00e6 Ecclesi\u00e6 sacramenta, ejus pestiferam\nvocationem, ANTICHRISTI REGNUM, fratrum fraudulentam originem atque\neorum hypocrisim, variaque nostro \u00e6vo scitu dignissima, perstringit.\n\n[137] Mandantes omnibus, &c.\u2014_tempus quoque pr\u00e6fixum futurorum\nmalorum, vel_ ANTICHRISTI ADVENTUM\u2014_pr\u00e6dicare, vel asserere, nequaquam\npr\u00e6sumant_. BIN. CONC. _Lateran._ v. _sub Leone_ X. _Sess._ xi. _p._ 632.\n\n[138] M. d\u2019Alembert, indeed, goes further. He acquaints us, that this\n_charge_ is now out of date, and that nobody, either within or without\nthe Romish communion, makes it any longer. For, speaking of a public\ninscription at Geneva, in which _the Pope is called Antichrist_, he\nanimadverts on this disgrace of that Protestant people, and very kindly\nsuggests to them what their improved sentiments and language should be\non that subject. _As for the Catholics_ (says he, very gravely,) _the\nPope is regarded by them, as the Head of the true Church: By sage and\nmoderate Protestants, he is seen in the light of a sovereign prince,\nwhom they respect, though they do not obey him: But, in an age like\nthis_, HE IS NO LONGER ANTICHRIST IN THE OPINION OF ANYBODY. \u201cPour\nles Catholiques, le Pape est le chef de la veritable Eglise; pour les\nProtestants sages & mod\u00e9r\u00e9s, c\u2019est un Souverein qu\u2019ils respectent comme\nPrince sans lui ob\u00e9ir: _mais dans un si\u00e9cle tel que n\u00f4tre, il n\u2019est\nplus l\u2019Antichrist pour personne_.\u201d Encyclopedie, Art. GENEVE.\u2014If the\npresent age be, here, truly characterized, it was high time, or rather\nit was too late, to found this Protestant Lecture.\n\n[139] Rompons leurs liens, dit-il, et rejettons leur joug de dessus nos\nt\u00eates. _Bossuet, H. V._ l. i. c. 26.\n\n[140] _Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her\nsins, and that ye receive not of her plagues._ Rev. xviii. 4.\n\n[141] Il [Luther] condamnoit les Bohemiens qui s\u2019etoient separez de\nn\u00f4tre communion, et protestoit qu\u2019il ne lui arriveroit jamais de tomber\ndans _un semblable Schisme_. _Bossuet, Hist. des Variat._ l. i. p.\n21. _Par._ 1740. And again, p. 28; Apres, dit-il [Luther,] que j\u2019eus\nsurmont\u00e9 tous les argumens qu\u2019on proposoit, il en restoit un dernier\nqu\u2019\u00e0 peine je pus surmonter par le secours de Jesus Christ avec une\nextr\u00eame difficult\u00e9 & beaucoup d\u2019angoisse; _c\u2019est qu\u2019il falloit \u00e9couter\nl\u2019Eglise_.\u2014One sees for what purpose M. Bossuet quotes these passages,\nand others of the same kind, from the writings of Luther. However, they\nshew very clearly how deep an impression the idea of Schism had made on\nthe mind even of this intrepid Reformer.\n\n[142] _Contra Bullam Antichristi_\u2014a tract of Luther, so called,\nagainst the Bull of Leo X.\n\n[143] Luther reconnoit apr\u00e8s la rupture ouverte, que dans les\ncommencemens il \u00e9toit _comme au desespoir_\u2014\n                                      _Bossuet, H. V._ c. 26.\n\n[144] Hor. 1 Ep. vi. 15.\n\n[145] Grotius was more than a great, he was a fashionable man. No\nwonder therefore that, under the influence of two such prejudices, his\nopinions should find followers; which yet they would scarce have found\nwith us, if the political state of that time had not been a _third_\nprejudice in their favour. See the Bishop of Gloucester\u2019s Sermon, _On\nthe rise of Antichrist_.\n\n[146] \u201cThe folly of interpreters has been, to foretell times and things\nby this prophecy, as if God designed to make them prophets.\u201d _Sir I.\nNewton_, p. 251.\n\n[147] \u201cGod gave this, and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not\nto gratify men\u2019s curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things;\nbut that, after they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted by\nthe event; and his own providence, not the interpreter\u2019s, be then\nmanifested thereby to the world.\u201d _Sir I. Newton_, p. 251.\n\n[148] \u201c\u2019Tis a part of this prophecy, that it should not be understood\nbefore the last age of the world; and therefore it makes for the credit\nof the prophecy, that it is not yet understood.\u201d _Sir I. Newton_, p.\n251.\n\n[149] St. Jerom, who lived in this time, speaks in the very terms, here\nsupposed, _Romanus orbis_ RUIT. Ep. iii.\n\n[150] Isai. lxv. 17.\u20142 Pet. iii. 4. 13.\n\n[151] Rev. x. 7.\n\n[152] Daniel xii. 10.\n\n[153] Mede, More, Daubuz, Vitringa, and, above all, the learned Founder\nof this Lecture.\n\n[154] Hence, the allusion of our great poet,\n\n        \u2014or from behind the moon\n    In dim eclipse disastrous twilight sheds\n    On half the nations, and _with fear of change\n    Perplexes monarchs_\u2014P. L. i. 596.\n\n[155] See these two works, published together, under the title of\n_Artemidori Daldiani et Achmetis Sereimi F. Oneirocritica_, by Nicolaus\nRigaltius. _Lutet._ 1603.\n\n[156] Non enim credo, _nullo percepto_ aut c\u00e6teros artifices versari in\nsuo munere, aut eos, qui divinatione utantur, futura pr\u00e6dicere. _Cic.\nde Fato_, c. 6.\n\n[157] Ezekiel xiii. 9.\n\n[158] See Dr. Lancaster\u2019s _Symbolical_ and _Alphabetical Dictionary_,\nprefixed to his abridgment of the Commentary on the Revelations, by Mr.\nDaubuz.\n\n[159] See this objection urged by Mr. Collins in his _Grounds and\nReasons_, &c. p. 220. Lond. 1737.\n\n[160] Jeremiah xxxiv. 3.\n\n[161] Ezek. xii. 13.\n\n[162] See Grotius on Matth. xxvi. 23.\n\n[163] As to the _authority_ of this extraordinary book (although the\ndiscussion of this point be foreign to my present purpose) it may\nbe proper to acquaint such persons, as have not made the inquiry\nfor themselves, and are perhaps incapable of making it, with the\nsentiments, which our ablest writers have entertained of it.\n\nMr. Mede, a capable inquirer, if there ever was any, says roundly\u2014\u201cThe\nApocalypse hath more human (not to speak of _divine_) authority, than\nany other book of the New Testament besides, even from the time it was\nfirst delivered.\u201d _Works_, p. 602.\n\n\u2014And to the same purpose, Sir Isaac Newton\u2014\u201cI do not find any other\nbook of the New Testament so strongly attested, or commented upon so\nearly, as this of the Apocalypse.\u201d _Observations on Daniel_, &c. page\n249.\n\nThus, these two incomparable men. What some minute critics have said,\nor insinuated to the contrary, is not worth mentioning; farther, than\njust to observe, that, if the authority of this momentous book be\nindeed questionable, the church of Rome could hardly have failed long\nsince to make the discovery, or to triumph in it.\n\n    _Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atrid\u00e6._\n\n[164] Mal. i. 11.\n\n[165] Lament. i. 15.\n\n[166] Isaiah xl. 20.\n\n[167] Ezek. xx. 47.\n\n[168] Isaiah ii. 2.\n\n[169] Chap. xvii.\n\n[170] The learned Bishop Andrews says expressly\u2014\u201cYou shall scarce\nfind a phrase in the Revelations of St. John, that is not taken out of\nDaniel, or some other prophet.\u201d _Vix reperias apud Johannem phrasin\naliquam, nisi vel ex Daniele, vel ex alio aliquo prophet\u00e2 desumptam._\nResp. ad Bellarm. Apol. p. 234.\n\n[171] An eminent writer gives an exact idea of it, in these words\u2014\u201cThe\nstyle [of the Revelations] is very prophetical, as to the things\nspoken: And very hebraizing, as to the speaking of them. Exceeding\nmuch of the old prophets language and matter adduced to intimate new\nstories: And exceeding much of the Jews language and allusion to their\ncustoms and opinions, thereby to speak the things more familiarly to be\nunderstood.\u201d Dr. LIGHTFOOT, _Harm. of the N. T._ p. 154, London, 1655.\n\n[172] I have heard it affirmed, on good grounds, that the late Dr.\nSamuel Clarke, being asked in conversation by a friend, whether, as\nhe had taken much pains to interpret the other books of Scripture, he\nhad never attempted any thing on the Revelations, replied, _He had\nnot; but that, notwithstanding, he thought he understood every word of\nit_: Not meaning, we may be sure, that he knew how to apply every part\nof that prophecy, but that he understood the _phraseology_, in which\nit was written; which a man, so conversant as he was in the style of\nscripture, might very well do.\u2014Calvin, indeed, has been commended for\nmaking the opposite declaration: And, it may be, with good reason:\nFor (not to derogate in any respect from the character of this great\nman) the language of the Scriptures, and especially of the prophetical\nscriptures, was in no degree so well understood in his time, as it was\nin that of Dr. S. Clarke.\n\n[173] \u201cAs for me, I am conscious of my weakness and unworthiness;\nbeing, when these kind of thoughts first possessed me, looking another\nway with a prejudice incompatible to this.\u201d _General Pref. to Mede\u2019s\nWorks_, p. 20, from a MS Letter.\n\n[174] He printed only a few copies of his _Clavis Apocalyptica_ in\n1627, at his own expence, and for the use of his friends. _Pref. to his\nCommentary._\n\n[175] His Commentary, on the principles of his _Clavis_, did not appear\ntill 1632.\n\n[176] \u201cI am by nature _cunctabundus_ in all things, but in this [his\nExposition] let no man blame me, if I take more pause than ordinary.\u201d\nMS Letter in _Gen. Pref._ p. 22. And again, in a Letter of reply\n_ad animadversiones Ludovici de Dieu_, \u201cEo ingenio sum (delicatulo,\nan moroso) ut nisi ubi interpretatio commod\u00e8 et absque salebris\neat, nunquam mihi satisfacere soleam.\u201d WORKS, p. 569. Yet of this\n_sage_ man, could the Bishop of Meaux allow himself to speak thus\nnegligently\u2014_Il s\u2019est rendu de nos jours c\u00e9l\u00e9bre en Angleterre_ PAR\nSES DOCTES REVERIES _sur l\u2019Apocalypse_. _Hist. des Var._ l. xiii. p.\n257. But M. de Meaux knew what he did, when he _affected_ this contempt\nof Joseph Mede. He was then at liberty to turn himself from the ablest\nadvocate of the Protestant cause, to the _weakest_; I mean, M. Jurieu,\nwhose indiscretions afforded, indeed, ample scope for the raillery of\nthis lively prelate. Mr. Mede was not a man to be confuted in this\nway, and still less by a fanciful and ill-supported _Exposition of the\nApocalypse_.\n\n[177] As appears from his backwardness to publish his discoveries, and\nfrom his unconcern about the reception of them. But see his Letter to\nMr. Hartlib, Ep. 96, p. 881; and compare with his answer to Dr. Twisse,\nEp. 51, p. 811. See also Ep. 98, to Mr. Hartlib, Aug. 6, 1638, not long\nbefore his death, in which are these words:\n\n\u201cI have not been very obtrusive unto men, to acquaint them with my\nnotions and conceits\u2014for some of them that are but lately known have\nlain by me above these twenty years.\u201d P. 883.\n\n[178] _The point of the Pope\u2019s being Antichrist, as a dead fly, marred\nthe savour of_ THAT OINTMENT\u2014meaning the merit he had of being\nknown to entertain some opinions; then much cherished by the ruling\nclergy. Ep. 56, p. 818. He says afterwards of himself, in the same\nLetter, _I thank God, I never made any thing hitherto the caster of my\nresolution, but reason and evidence, on what side soever the advantage\nor disadvantage fell_.\n\n[179] His friends speak much of his chearful disposition.\u2014But I draw\nthis conclusion from the tenour of his _life_ and _writings_; and,\nabove all, from that famous declaration which he made in confidence to\na friend, that, _if he might but obtain a Donative sine cur\u00e2, of so\nmuch value as, together with his fellowship_ [of Christ\u2019s College in\nCambridge,] _should enable him to keep a horse, for his recreation, he\nwould set up his staff for this world_. _App. to his Life_, p. 40.\u2014The\nsimplicity of this declaration, makes one confident of its truth. And\na man of so moderate desires, was in no danger of having his temper\n_soured_ by disappointments.\n\n[180] Siquidem, qu\u00e6 isti tuo Vaticinio jam, ut dixi, cognito,\nc\u00e6tera contemporaverint Vaticinia, iisdem procul dubio temporibus\nsunt applicanda; qu\u00e6 autem pr\u00e6cedunt, non nisi de pr\u00e6cedaneis; qu\u00e6\nsuccedunt, pariter de succedaneis eventibus sunt interpretanda.\n                   _Clavis Apocalyptica_, in Mede's _Works_, p. 432.\n\n[181] From ch. iv. to the end of ch. ix: And from ch. x. to the end.\n\n[182] The sounding of the seventh trumpet.\n\n[183] Ch. x. 7.\n\n[184] Ch. xi. 15.\n\n[185] The reader may form a distinct idea of the method, in which the\n_whole_ book of the Apocalypse is disposed, by observing that it is\nresolvable into THREE great parts.\n\nThe FIRST part, is that of the EPISTLES to the seven churches,\ncontained in the three first chapters, and is not at all considered by\nMr. Mede.\n\nThe SECOND part (with which Mr. Mede begins his commentary) is that of\nthe SEALED BOOK, from ch. iv. to ch. x; and contains _the fates of the\nEmpire_, or its civil revolutions, yet, with a reference, still, to the\nstate and fortune of the Christian Church.\n\nThe THIRD part, is that of the OPEN BOOK, with what follows to the\nend; and exhibits in a more minute and extended view, _the fates of\nthe Christian Church_, especially during its Apostacy, and after its\nrecovery from it.\n\nThis THIRD division may, further, be considered as consisting of TWO\nparts. The FIRST contains, in ch. xi, a summary view of what should\nbefal the Christian Church, contemporary with the events deduced in\nthe _second_ part concerning the Empire; and is given in this place,\nin order to connect the _second_ and _third_ parts, and to shew their\ncorrespondence and contemporaneity. See Mr. Mede\u2019s Clavis, p. 424; and\nComment. Apocalypt. p. 476.\n\nThe SECOND part of the last division, from ch. xii. to the end, gives a\ndetailed account of what should befal the Christian Church in distinct,\nand, several of them, synchronical visions.\n\nIt has been thought by some an objection to Mr. Mede\u2019s scheme, \u201cThat\nthe prophecy of the _open book_, (which contains, according to him, all\nthe remaining visions to the end of the Revelations) is not only, for\nthe _subject_, more considerable, but, for the _size_ of the volume,\nlarger, than the Prophecy of the _sealed book_; whereas, the name given\nto it, \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, or _little book_, seems very clearly to express the\ncontrary.\u201d\n\nIf this objection be thought material (for I do not find that Mr. Mede\ncondescends to take any notice of it) it _might_, perhaps, be obviated\nby supposing, That the _little book_ contains the xith chapter, only,\nbeing a compendium of the _third_ division, and inserted in this place\nto shew the contemporaneity of the _two last_ and principal parts;\nand that all which follows to the end, is to be regarded as a sort of\n_comment_ on the little book, or larger explication of its contents:\nAs if the design had been to consult our weakness, in presenting us,\n_first_, with an abridged view of a great scheme, and _then_, in\ndrawing it out at large, for our more distinct information.\n\nBut the _truer_ answer to the difficulty I take to be, That the _sealed\nbook_ is represented under the idea of a _book_, properly so called,\nwhich, upon being opened, presents to the eye the several objects\nand schemes of the prophecy, distinctly delineated on the _roll_, or\nvolume, when it comes to be unfolded, and which, therefore, must needs\nbe considered as a _large_ one. The _open book_, on the other hand,\nis to be regarded, not as a real, but _metaphorical_ book; and is not\nproduced to be read or contemplated, after a gradual evolution of it,\nbut to be _eaten_, at once, by the prophet; like that book, to which\nit alludes, and from which the imagery is taken, in the visions of\nEzekiel [ii. 8. and iii. 1, 2, 3.]\u2014to _eat a book_, being, in the\nhieroglyphics, to _meditate upon_, and to _digest_, its contents.\nSo that this book, to distinguish it from the other, is named a\n_little book_: not, that the revelations, conveyed by it, are less\nconsiderable, or less numerous, than the other, but that the _use_,\nto which it is put, required only that it should be spoken of, as a\n_book_ simply; the diminutive form being here suggested in the term\n\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, that the metaphor of _eating_ it might seem the easier;\nand (because the former _sealed_ book was of an immense size) might,\nunder this idea, present itself the more naturally, and give less\noffence, to the imagination.\n\n[186] I am not ignorant that many interpreters have thought otherwise.\nBut possibly they have not enough attended to the advice, which\nMr. Mede used to give to such of his friends as did not enter into\nhis ideas\u2014EXPENDE. My meaning is, that, if they had possessed the\npatience, or the sagacity, to understand this great Inventor, before\nthey objected to him, they would perhaps have seen cause to acquiesce\nin the _Method_, pointed out by him, instead of attempting in various\nways, and to little purpose, to improve upon it.\n\n[187] Dan. vii. 7, 8.\u2014I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth\nbeast\u2014had _ten horns_. I considered the horns, and behold, there came\nup among them _another little horn_\u2014Compare with ver. 24.\u2014The ten\nhorns out of this kingdom are _ten kings_ (or kingdoms) that shall\narise: and _another shall arise after them_.\n\n[188] Mede, p. 712.\n\n[189] Sir Isaac Newton, p. 31.\n\n[190] Dan. vii. 11, 12.\u2014Concerning the rest of the beasts, they had\ntheir _dominion taken away_: yet their _lives were prolonged_ for a\nseason and a time.\n\n[191] Rev. xvii. 3, 4. 9. 12. 18.\n\n[192] Martial. l. iv. ep. 64.\n\n[193] Propert. l. III. ix. 57.\n\n[194] Georg. l. ii. ver. 532.\n\n[195] Compare \u00c6n. vi. ver. 776. &c.\n\n[196] Rev. xvii. 1.\n\n[197] Ibid. ver. 15.\n\n[198] _Septem_ BESTI\u00c6 _capita_, duplex typus: prim\u00f2, septem montes seu\ncolles sunt, super quos urbs Besti\u00e6 metropolis sita est; deinde, septem\nquoque, idque in iisdem (quod unitas typi denotat) Collibus, Regum seu\nDynastarum successivorum ordines. Works, p. 524.\n\n[199] The whole passage in the original stands thus\u2014\u03b1\u1f31 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76,\n\u1f44\u03c1\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70, \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03ac\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u2014of which the following is the literal translation\u2014The SEVEN\nHEADS are _seven hills_, where the woman sitteth upon them, AND are\n_seven kings_\u2014Every one sees that the connective particle, AND, refers\nto _heads_, and not to _hills_.\n\n[200] Dan. vii. 24.\u2014The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings\nthat shall arise: and another shall arise after them, and He shall be\n_diverse_ from the first\u2014\n\n[201] 2 Thess. ii. 4.\n\n[202] See Grotius, on the place: who applies this prophecy to Caius\nC\u00e6sar, and thinks it was fulfilled when that Emperor commanded his\nstatue to be placed in the temple of Jerusalem. A strange conjecture!\nwhich many writers, and very lately an excellent prelate, has well\nconfuted. Bishop Newton\u2019s _Diss. on the Prophecies_, Vol. ii. p. 375.\n\n[203] _Hierosolyma_ in scriptis prophetarum occurrit ut emblema\nalterius cujusdam _Hierosolym\u00e6_, mystic\u00e8 sic dicend\u00e6; qu\u00e6 _Hierosolyma_\nnon potest esse urbs qu\u00e6dam in montibus Zione & Acra constructa, qualis\nfuit antiqua illa; sed oportet esse _rem spiritualem_, in qu\u00e2 attributa\nantiqu\u00e6 Hierosolym\u00e6 _mystic\u00e8_ demonstrentur.\n                         VITRINGA, _Apocalyps: Exp. & Illustr._ p. 762.\n\n[204] Rev. xiii. 11.\n\n[205] John i. 29.\n\n[206] Dan. vii. 8. 20. Rev. xvii. 1. 16, 17.\n\n[207] Dan. vii. 21. Rev. xvii. 14. xiii. 7. 16.\n\n[208] Rev. xvii. 5.\n\n[209] Le saint ap\u00f4tre a bien pris garde de ne pas nommer la prostitu\u00e9e,\ndont il parle, une adultere, \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1, \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b1, mais une femme\npublique\u2014sans jamais avoir employ\u00e9 le mot d\u2019_adultere_; tant il \u00e9toit\nattentif \u00e0 \u00e9viter l\u2019id\u00e9e d\u2019une \u00e9pouse infidelle.\u2014Loin de marquer la\nProstitu\u00e9e, comme une _Eglize corrompu\u00eb_, nous avons montr\u00e9 clairement\nqu\u2019il a pris des id\u00e9es toutes contraires \u00e0 celles-l\u00e0, puis qu\u2019au lieu\nde produire une _Jerusalem infidelle_, ou du moins une _Samarie_,\nautrefois partie du peuple saint, commee il auroit fait s\u2019il avoit\nvoulu nous repr\u00e9senter une eglise corrompu\u00eb, il nous propose une\n_Babylone_, qui jamais n\u2019a et\u00e9 nomm\u00e9e dans l\u2019alliance de Dieu. Nous\navons aussi remarqu\u00e9 qu\u2019il n\u2019avoit jamais donn\u00e9 \u00e0 la Prostitu\u00e9e le\ntitre d\u2019\u00e9pouse infidelle ou repudi\u00e9e; mais que par tout il s\u2019\u00e9toit\nservi du terme de _fornication_, et de tous ceux qui revenoient au\nm\u00eame sens. Je s\u00e7ais que ces mots se confondent quelquefois avec\ncelui d\u2019_adultere_, mais _le fort du raisonnement consiste en ce que\nde propos deliber\u00e9_ Saint Jean _evite toujours ce dernier mot_ qui\nmarqueroit _la foi viol\u00e9e, le mariage souill\u00e9, et l\u2019alliance rompu\u00eb_,\n&c.\u2014_L\u2019 Apocalypse avec une Explication; par Messire Jaques Benigne\nBossuet, Ev\u00e9que de Meaux_. PREF. 26, 29. AVERTISEMENT, p. 321-323. Par.\n1690, 12^{o}.\n\n[210] The reason I take to be, That _fornication_, that is, vague\nlust, and general prostitution, served best to express the unbridled\nand indiscriminate passion of the Jews for the d\u00e6mon-worship of their\nneighbours: Whereas the crime of _adultery_, though of a blacker\ndye, and, in that view, more proper to expose the malignity of their\noffence, does not convey the same ideas of universal pollution, being\nusually committed, _because_ it is so criminal, with more distinction\nand restraint.\n\n[211] Isaiah xxiii. 16, 17. Nahum iii. 4.\n\n[212] \u2014_for it is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon\ntheir idols._ Jer. l. 38. Again: _Babylon hath been a golden cup in the\nLord\u2019s hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken\nof her wine, therefore the nations are mad_. Jer. li. 7. Compare Rev.\nxvii.\u2014_the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine\nof her fornication_.\n\n[213] Mr. Mede. Works, p. 49.\n\n[214] Deut. xxiii. 17.\n\n[215] Rev. xvii. 6 \u1f10\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1.\n\n[216] Not held of the civil power, or acknowledged to be so held, but\nusurped upon it, and insolently directed against it; as is well known\nfrom ecclesiastical history. _The Pope is not Antichrist: God forbid!_\n(says the good Abb\u00e9 Fleury, with a zeal becoming a member of the Papal\ncommunion.) _But neither is he impeccable, nor has he an absolute\nauthority in the church over all things both temporal and spiritual_\u2014_Le\npape n\u2019est pas l\u2019Antichrist; \u00e0 Dieu ne plaise; mais il n\u2019est pas\nimpeccable, ni monarque absolu dans l\u2019eglise pour le temporel et pour\nle spirituel_ [4^{eme} _disc. sur l\u2019hist. ecclesiastique_, p. 173. Par.\n1747, 12^{o}.]\n\nThe Pope, he says, _is not an absolute monarch in the church over all\nthings temporal and spiritual_: That is, he _ought not_ to arrogate to\nhimself the power of an absolute monarch; for that the pope assumes to\nbe such a monarch, and, in fact, exercised this supreme monarchical\npower in the church, through many ages, the learned and candid writer\nhad indisputably shewn, in the discourse, whence these words are\nquoted. But now this _monarchical sovereignty in all things temporal,\nas well us spiritual_, is certainly one prophetical note or character,\nby which the person or power, styled Antichristian, is distinguished.\nLet the Pope, then, be what he will, we are warranted by M. Fleury\nhimself to conclude, that he hath, at least, this mark of Antichrist.\n\n[217] In the _persecution of heretics_; which M. Bossuet regards as\nso little dishonourable to his communion, that he thinks it _a point\nnot to be called in question_\u2014calls the use of the sword in matters\nof religion, _an undoubted right_\u2014and concludes, that _there is no\nillusion more dangerous than to consider_ TOLERATION, _as a mark of the\ntrue Church_\u2014_l\u2019exercise de la puissance du glaive dans les matieres de\nla religion & de la conscience; chose, que ne pe\u00fbt \u00eatre revoqu\u00e9e en\ndoute\u2014le droit est certain\u2014il n\u2019y a point d\u2019illusion plus dangereuse\nque de donner_ LA SOUFFRANCE _pour un caractere le vraye Eglise_. _Hist.\ndes Var._ l. x. p. 51. Par. 1740, 12^{o}.\n\nThus, this great doctor of the Catholic church, towards the close\nof the last century. And just now, another eminent writer of that\ncommunion very roundly defends the murder of the Bohemian martyrs\nat Constance, and (what is more provoking still) the _fraud and\nill-faith_, through which the pious and tender-hearted _Fathers_ of\nthat council rushed to the perpetration of it. _M. Crevier, Hist.\nde l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris_, t. iii. l. vi. p. 435, &c. Par. 1761,\n12^{o}.\u2014Can it be worth while to spend words in fixing this charge of\n_intolerance_ on the church of Rome, when her ablest advocates, as\nwe see, even in our days, openly triumph in it? But, then, hath she\nforgotten who it was that the prophet _saw, drunken with the blood of\nthe saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus_\u2014Rev. xvii. 6?.\nAlas, no: But she wonders, by what figure of speech _heretics_ are\ncalled _Saints_; and _rebels to the Pope_, _Martyrs of Jesus_.\n\n[218] See Vitringa _Apocalyps. Exp._ p. 603, and the authors cited\nby him: But, above all, see Mr. Mede\u2019s exquisite and unanswerable\ndiscourse, entitled, _The Apostacy of the latter times_.\n\n\u2019Tis true, the Bishop of Meaux is pleased to divert himself with one\npart of this discourse; I mean, that part, which contains [ch. xvi.\nand xvii.] the learned writer\u2019s interpretation of Daniel\u2019s prophecy,\nconcerning the Gods _Mahuzzim_. He finds something pleasant in this\nidea, or rather in this hard word, which he repeats so often, and in\nsuch a way, as if he thought the very sound of _Mahuzzim_, was enough\nto expose the comment and Commentator to contempt. _Hist. des Var._ l.\nxiii. p. 260, 261. But, after all, the ingenious Prelate would have\ndone himself no discredit by being a little more serious in discussing\nan interpretation, which Sir Isaac Newton adopts without scruple [_Obs.\non the prophecies of Daniel, &c._ p. 192]; and which, in mere respect\nto the prophet, he should, at least, have condescended to replace by\nsome other and more reasonable interpretation. But it is the infirmity\nof this lively man, to be jocular _out of season_. Thus, again, he\nraillies Luther, for an assertion of his, delivered, it seems, with\nsome assurance, and, in the form, as he pretends, of a prediction,\n_That the Papal power would speedily decline and come to nothing, in\nconsequence of the Reformation_. The event, he says, has belied the\nprophet; the Pope still keeps his ground; and then (in an unlucky\nparenthesis) laughs to think, _how many others, besides Luther, will be\ndashed to pieces against this_ STONE\u2014_bien d\u2019autres, que Luther, se\nbriseront contre cette_ PIERRE [_Var._ l. xiii. p. 244]. Now, if the\nglory of saying a good thing had not infatuated this Catholic Bishop,\ncould he have helped starting at his own comparison of a _stone_, as\napplied to Luther and the Reformation, when it might so naturally have\nput him in mind of that prophetical STONE, which shall one day _become\na great mountain_, and _break in pieces a certain_ IMAGE, _and stand\nfor ever_ [Dan. ii. 35, 44.]?\n\n[219] L\u2019Eglise, en nous enseignant qu\u2019il est utile de prier les\nSaints, nous enseigne \u00e0 les prier dans ce m\u00eame esprit de charit\u00e9, &\nselon cet ordre de soci\u00e9t\u00e9 fraternelle qui nous porte \u00e0 demander le\nsecours de nos freres vivans sur la terre; & le Catechisme du Concile\nde Trente conclut de cette doctrine, que si la qualit\u00e9 de Mediateur,\nque l\u2019ecriture donne \u00e0 Jesus Christ, recevoit quelque pr\u00e9judice de\nl\u2019intercession des Saints qui regnent avec Dieu, elle n\u2019eu recevroit\npas moins de l\u2019intercession des fideles qui vivent avec nous.\n\n    M. BOSSUET, _Exposition de la doctrine de l\u2019Eglise Catholique_, p.\n    17, 18. Paris, 1671.\n\n[220] Vitringa, p. 603, 604.\n\n[221] Heb. x. 24.\n\n[222] 1 Thess. v. 25. 1 Tim. ii. 1. and elsewhere, _passim_.\n\n[223] Coloss. ii. 18.\n\n[224] Heb. vii. 25.\n\n[225] Page 228-231, and p. 255.\n\n[226] \u201cWhatsoever time of Messiah\u2019s appearing Almighty God pointed out\nby Daniel\u2019s LXX Weeks, yet I believe not that any Jew before the event,\ncould infallibly design the time without some latitude; because they\ncould not know infallibly where to pitch the head of their accounts,\nuntil the event discovered it: yet in some latitude they might.\u201d _Mede,\nWorks_, p. 757.\n\nAnd so in other instances. \u201cI do not believe that the Jews themselves\ncould certainly tell from which of their _three captivities_ to begin\nthat reckoning of LXX years, whose end should bring their return from\nBabylon, until the event assured them thereof.\u201d\n                                               _Mede, Works_, p. 662.\n\n[227] Dan. vii.\n\n[228] 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7.\n\n[229] P. 182-184. But see especially Mede\u2019s Works, p. 657.\n\n[230] Rev. xvii. 7.\n\n[231] Rev. i. 1.\n\n[232] Rev. ii. 8. xxi. 6.\n\n[233] Heb. ii. 3.\n\n[234] Hab. ii. 14. Is. xxvi. 9.\n\n[235] Rev. v. 10.\n\n[236] Ibid. xix. 6.\n\n[237] Rev. xviii. 6.\n\n[238] Rev. xviii. 4.\n\n[239] M. de Meaux: _L\u2019Apocalypse avec une explication. Avertisement aux\nProtestants_, p. 303, &c. Par. 1690.\n\n[240] Sermon VIII.\n\n[241] M. Daill\u00e9.\n\n[242] Lord Falkland, Lord Digby, Dr. Jer. Taylor, &c.\n\n[243] Serm. I. II. III.\n\n[244] Serm. IV.\n\n[245] Serm. V. VI.\n\n[246] Serm. VII. VIII.\n\n[247] Serm. IX. X.\n\n[248] Serm. XI.\n\n[249] Sermon XII.\n\n[250] Verum non est desperandum. Fortasse, _non canimus surdis_. Nec\nenim tam in malo statu res est, ut desint san\u00e6 mentes, quibus et\nveritas placeat, et monstratum sibi rectum iter et videant et sequantur.\n                       _Lactant. Div. Inst._ l. v. p. 417. _ed. Sparke_.\n\n[251] \u1f18\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u0390\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c7\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7\n                                Fl. Joseph. B. J. l. iv. 6.\n\n[252] Gal. v. 1.\n\n[253] 2 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n[254] Acts xiii. 40, 41.\n\n[255] Judith iii. 8.\n\n[256] See his Posthumous Works, published by Lord Sheffield, 2 vols. in\n4to. Lond. 1796. Vol. I. p. 463.\n\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nInconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.\n\nGreek words beginning with \u03d6 have had the character replaced with \u03c0.]","title":"The works of Richard Hurd, volume 5 (of 8)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":81811}