Chapter V: Part 5

Such was the state of things, when the bold spirit of Luther resolved, at all adventures, to break through this inveterate servitude[139], so dextrously imposed on the Christian world, under the pretence, and in the name, of ecclesiastical union. Yet the peril of the attempt was easily foreseen, or was presently felt. And, therefore, the Reformers (to prevent the ill effects which the dreadful name of _Schism_ might have on themselves and their cause, and to satisfy at once their own consciences and those of their adherents) not only revived and enforced the old charge of _Antichristianism_ against the church of Rome; but further insisted (on the authority of those prophecies which justified the charge) that Christians were bound in conscience, by the most express command, to break all communion with her. The expedient, one sees, was well calculated to serve the purpose in hand: but still the command was truly and pertinently alledged; for it exists in so many words (however the blindness or the bigotry of former times had overlooked it) in the book of the _Revelations_[140]. So that whoever admitted the _charge_ itself to be well founded, could not reject this _consequence_ of it, That Christ and Antichrist had no fellowship with each other. And on this popular ground, chiefly, the Protestant cause, in those early times, was upheld; with no small advantage to the patrons of it; it being now clear, that the invidious imputation of Schism had lost its malignity in the general obligation, which lay upon Christians, to renounce all communion with the church of Rome.

This being the true account of that zeal, with which the doctrine of Antichrist was asserted in the days of Reformation, let us see how the case stands at present; and whether any reasonable prejudice lies against the doctrine itself, from the uses, that were then so happily made of it.

In the first place, The injunction, _to come out of her_, was, as I observed, not forged by the Reformers; nor (admitting that church to be Antichristian) was it misrepresented by them. Every reader of the prophecies must confess, that the command is clearly delivered, and that the sense of it is not mistaken. How serviceable soever, therefore, this topic was to the cause of reformation, it is not, on that account, to be the less esteemed by the just and candid inquirer.

In the next place, I will freely admit, that the dread, in which most men, if not all men[141], of that time, were held, of incurring the imputation of Schism, was much greater, than the occasion required, and, upon the whole, a sort of panic terror. For, though a causeless separation from the church would indeed have loaded the Reformers with much and real guilt, yet when the abuses of it had risen to that height as to reduce an honest man to the alternative, either of committing sin, or of leaving its communion, they might well have justified themselves on the evident necessity of the thing, and had no need of a positive command to authorize their separation. All this is, now, clearly seen; and if the first Reformers did not see thus much (as very probably they did not) all that follows is, That the doctrine of Antichrist, from which that command derived its effect, was less necessary to their cause, than they supposed it to be; not, that the doctrine itself is without authority, or the command without obligation.

Lastly, I observe, that, though the _violences_ of the time might force the Reformers to take shelter in this doctrine of Antichrist, and though the _prejudices_ of the time might induce them to take the advantage, they did, of it; yet, neither of these considerations affords any just presumption against the doctrine, as it lies in scripture, and is enforced by us at this time out of it; because we argue, not from their authority, but from the prophecies themselves; which are much better understood by us, than they were by them; and are still maintained to speak the sense, which they put upon them, I mean with respect to the general application of them to the church of Rome, though we have nothing to apprehend either from the power of that church, or from the prejudices of the people.

Let no man, therefore, rashly conclude, from the free use made of this doctrine by our old Reformers (and there is scarce one of them that has not left behind him a tract or discourse on Antichrist) that it hath no better or other foundation, than in their interests or passions. A reasonable man sees, that it has no dependance at all upon them. That Luther, indeed, heated in the controversy with the church of Rome, and smoaking, as I may say, from the recent blast of the papal thunders, should cry out, ANTICHRIST[142], shall pass, if you will, for a sally of rage and desperation[143]. But that we, at this day, who revolve the prophecies at our ease, and are in little more dread of modern Rome, than of ancient Babylon, should still find the resemblance so striking as to fall upon the same idea; and should even be driven against the strong bias of prejudice (which with us, in England, for above a century past, has drawn the other way) to adopt the language of our great Reformer; this, I say, is a consideration of another sort, and will not be put off so slightly.

STILL, there are other prejudices, which oppose themselves to this great Protestant principle, _That the Pope is Antichrist_; and these, it will not be beside the purpose of this Lecture to consider. It may, then, be said,

II. “That, although there be not the same evident necessity for bringing this odious charge against the Papacy, as there was formerly in the infancy of Reformation, yet obvious reasons are not wanting, which may possibly induce the Protestant churches of our times to repeat and inforce it. So long as the separation is kept up, the partizans of the cause will not scruple to lay hold on every popular topic, by which it may be promoted. But an _ill name_, is the readiest of all expedients, and generally the most effectual, for this service. And as _Heretic_ is the term in use, when the church of Rome would discredit the Reformation; so, _Antichrist_ serves just as well, in the mouth of a Protestant, to disgrace the Catholic party. Hence, the people are gratified in a low spite against the person of the Pope; the better sort are confirmed in their religious or politic aversion to the church of Rome; and Princes themselves are invited to come in aid of the prophecies, by turning their arms and councils against a godless antichristian tyranny: and all this, to the ruin of public peace, and in defiance of Christian charity.”

When men declaim, instead of arguing, or, what is worse, when they argue from their suspicions only, it may not be easy to give them an answer to their satisfaction. Otherwise, one might reply,

_First_, That the question is not, what use has been, or may be, made of this doctrine concerning Antichrist; but whether there be reason to believe that such doctrine is really contained in sacred scripture. If there be, it will become us to treat it with respect, how much soever it may have been misapplied, or perverted.

In the _next place_, one might observe that no man, who understood the state of this controversy, ever applied the prophecies concerning Antichrist to the _person_ of the Pope, but in general to the church of Rome, or rather to the Antichristian spirit, by which it is governed; or, if to the _Pope_, to him only as representing that society, of which he is the head; and so far only, as he acted in the spirit of it. And there is nothing strange or unusual in this use of the term. When Hobbes wrote his famous book, called LEVIATHAN (a word, now at least, of almost as ill sound, as Antichrist itself) no man supposes, that he meant to apply this character, exclusively, to the person of any prince, then living; but, in general, to _civil government_, according to the ideas he had formed of it. And this way of speaking, as I have before observed, is especially familiar to the sacred writers. Many of the Popes are said to have been, and, for any thing I know, _may_ have been, _Saints_, in their private morals: so that when we apply the term, Antichrist, to them, we do not mean to stigmatize their _persons_, but merely to express the sense which the prophecies lead us to entertain of the communion, over which they preside; though they may not exemplify in their own conduct, or not in any remarkable degree, the avowed principles of that communion.

Conceive, therefore, with more respect of Protestant divines, when they explain and vindicate the prophecies concerning Antichrist, than to suppose, that they indulge in themselves, or would encourage in others, _a low spite against the person of the Roman Pontif_.

_Thirdly_, It is to be observed, that, although this prophetic language may tend to confirm Protestants _in a religious, or_, if you will, _politic aversion to the church of Rome_; yet it is not therefore to be forborn, if the scriptures do, indeed, authorize the use of it; nor is there any hurt done, if the principles of that church be not misrepresented; for then, such aversion becomes the wisdom and the duty of all Christians. Besides, this aversion proceeds no farther in well-informed Protestants, than to keep them at distance from the Romish communion, and to admonish others of their obligation to forsake it. And, if the members, above all, if the rulers, of that communion would restrain _their_ zeal within the same bounds (though they would not, we say, be equally justified in this zeal) neither public peace, nor Christian charity, would suffer by it.

_Lastly_, it should be remembered, That, when the prophecies foretell the downfall of Antichrist, and even go so far as to point out to us the princes of that communion, as the destined instruments of such catastrophe; yet neither is hereby any duty imposed on those princes to make war upon the Pope, nor any encouragement given to Protestants themselves to concur in any such measures. For the prophets simply predict an _event_; and do not deliver in their prediction, or propose to deliver, _rules_ for our conduct. Our Saviour himself, speaking by the spirit, and in the language of prophecy, said—_I come not to send peace on earth, but a sword_. But will any man suppose that this prediction justifies, or was meant in any degree to justify, that state of things, which it describes, and which the author of it foresaw would too certainly come to pass? Nor think, that the event predicted, I mean, _the fall of Antichrist_, will not take place, unless our invectives, or hostile attempts, make way for it. If the prediction be divine, there is ONE, who will see that it be accomplished. Princes and States may have nothing less in view than to fulfill the prophecies of sacred Scripture: yet, when the appointed time is come, they will certainly fulfill them, though they never thought _of coming in aid of the prophecies_—though we should not encourage them in any such presumptuous design—nay, though we should do our utmost, as it is our duty to do, to restrain vindictive and ill-advised men from turning their arms even against Antichrist himself, for the sake of religion.

This topic, I know, is much laboured by the advocates of the papal cause, in order to throw disgrace on Protestant writers, whom they consider as so many incendiaries, wickedly attempting to spread the flames of war through Christian societies. There might be a time when, in the case of some few men, transported by passion, because outrageously oppressed, there was, perhaps, some colour for this charge. But to persist in it, as they still do, only shews that they neither conceive with due reverence of divine prophecy, nor do justice to that spirit of toleration by which the Protestant churches, at least of our days, are so eminently distinguished.

III. “A _third_ prejudice, which operates in the minds of many persons against the principle under consideration, arises from the disagreeing opinions of learned men concerning the sense and application of the prophecies; while not only the papal Divines, but many writers of note even among ourselves, have strenuously maintained that the church of Rome is no way concerned in the predictions concerning Antichrist.”

To this prejudice, I observe,

1. That arguments from authority, in all cases where reason and good sense must finally decide, are very little to be regarded. Shew me the question in religion, or even in common morals, about which learned men have not disagreed; nay, shew me a single text of scripture, though ever so plain and precise, which the perverseness or ingenuity of interpreters has not drawn into different, and often contrary meanings. What then shall we conclude? That there is no truth in religion, no certainty in morals, no authority in sacred scripture? If such conclusions, as these, be carried to their utmost length, in what else can they terminate, but absolute universal scepticism?

2. I observe that this authority, after all, whatever weight we may, in the general, suppose it to have, is, in the present case, no great matter; for it is, in effect, but the authority of ONE man, whose eminent worth, however, and lustre of reputation, made it current with some others.

The character of HUGO GROTIUS is well known. He is justly esteemed among the ablest and most learned men of an age, that abounded in ability and learning. Besides his other shining talents, his acquaintance with history was extensive; and his knowledge of scripture, profound. And yet, with two such requisites for unlocking the true sense of the prophetic writings, this excellent man undertook to prove in form, _That the Pope was not Antichrist_.

The account of this mischance, is as extraordinary, as the mischance itself. The moral qualities of Grotius were still more admirable, than his intellectual: and in these qualities, we shall find the true spring of his unhappy and misapplied pains on the subject before us.

He was in his own nature just, candid, benevolent, to a supreme degree; and the experience of an active turbulent life had but fortified him the more in a love of these pacific virtues. He was, on principle, a sincere and zealous Christian; and consequently impressed with a due sense of that exalted charity, which is the characteristic of that religion: but he had seen and felt much of the mischiefs, which proceed from theological quarrels: and thus every thing concurred to make him a friend to peace, and, above all, to peace among Christians.

An union of the Catholic and Protestant churches seemed necessary to this end: and the apparent candour, whether real or affected, of some learned persons, whom he had long known and valued in the church of Rome, drew him into the belief, that such a project was not impracticable. Henceforth, it became the ruling object of his life; and, permitting himself too easily to conclude, that the Protestant doctrine of Antichrist was the sole, or principal obstruction to the union desired, he bent all the efforts of his wit and learning to discredit and overthrow that doctrine.

Thus, was this virtuous man betrayed by the wisdom and equity of his own character; and I know not if the observation of the moral poet can be so justly applied to any other—

Insani sapiens nomen ferat, æquus iniqui,
Ultrà quàm satis est, virtutem si petat ipsam[144].

The issue of his general scheme was what might easily be foreseen: and of his _arguments_, I shall only say thus much, That the Romish writers themselves, for whose use they might seem to be invented, though they continue to object his name to us, are too wise to venture the stress of their cause upon them.

To conclude this head of authority, let me just observe,

3. In the last place, that, if any regard be due to it, the advantage will clearly be on our side. For, though the name of Grotius made an impression on some Protestant interpreters of scripture, not inconsiderable for their parts and learning, yet, when the grounds of his opinion came to be examined, the most and the ablest of them have generally declared against him: and among these, let it be no offence to the manes of this great[145] man, if we particularly mention TWO, and prefer even to his authority that of Newton and Clarke; the one, the ablest philosopher, and the other, the coolest and most rational divine, that any age has produced.

IV. “Another, and _fourth_ prejudice may have been entertained on this subject from observing that many curious persons, who have employed themselves much and long in the study of the prophecies, especially of those concerning Antichrist, have been led (on their authority, as they pretend) to fix the time and other circumstances of great events, which yet have not fallen out agreeable to their expectations. Whence it is inferred, that no solid information can be derived from the prophecies, and that all our reasonings upon them are no better than fancy and conjecture.”

Now, though the indiscretion of these curious persons, who would needs prophecy when their business was only to interpret[146], be injurious enough to their own character, I do not see how it affects that of the prophets; unless whatever may be abused (as every thing may) be answerable for the abuses made of it. But to reply more directly to this charge.

The ill success of men in explaining prophecies of events, not yet come to pass, can in no degree discredit those prophecies, unless it be essential to this sort of revelation to be so clearly proposed, as that it may and must be perfectly understood, before those events happen; the contrary of which I have already shewn, in a preceding discourse. The very idea of prophecy is that of _a light shining in a dark place_: and a place is not _dark_, if we have light enough to discern distinctly and fully every remote corner of it. But the thing speaks itself. For to what end is the prediction delivered in obscure and enigmatic terms, if the purpose of the inspirer was that the subject of the prediction should be immediately, and in all its circumstances, precisely apprehended? Why, then, is any distinction made between Prophecy, and History? The mode of writing clearly demonstrates, that something, for a time at least, was meant to be concealed from us: and then, if men will attempt, out of season, to penetrate this mystery, what wonder if mistake be the fruit of their presumption?

Again: the _declared_ end of prophecy is, not that we may be enabled by it to foresee things before they come to pass, but _when_ they come to pass, that we may acknowledge the divine author of the prophecy[147]. What dishonour, then, can it be to the prophet, that he is not perfectly understood, till we be expected to make use of his information? Nay, in the case before us, it would dishonour him, if he was. For, of the prophecies concerning Antichrist we are expressly told, that they are _shut up and sealed, till the time of the end_; that is, till Time brings the key along with him. So that, if men could open them, by their own wit and sagacity only, they would give the lye to the prophet. And thus we see, that the very mistakes of interpreters attempting prematurely to unfold the _sealed_ prophecies concerning Antichrist, far from subverting, support the credit of those prophecies[148].

But I have something more to say on this subject. Though we cannot see every thing in the prophecies, which we are impatient to see, it is not to be supposed that we can see nothing in them. If this were the case, we should scarce regard them as prophecies at all; at least, we should hardly be prevailed upon to read and consider them. For, it is on the supposition that some _light_ is communicated to us, that we are disposed, as well as required, to _take heed to it_. In short, if we saw nothing, we should expect nothing: such prophecies would not engage our curiosity, or so much as take our attention. In one word, they would be utterly lost upon us.

This seems to have been, in some measure, the case with regard to this very book of the _Revelations_. The early Christians saw so little in this prophecy, that they were led by degrees to neglect the study of it. Otherwise, the little they did see, might have given them a glimpse, at least, of many things, that intimately concerned both their faith and conduct.

It being then necessary, as I said, that prophecy should, from the first, convey some light to us, and time having now very much increased that light, it follows, that men may excuseably employ themselves in studying and contemplating even unfulfilled prophecies. They may conjecture modestly of points which time has not yet revealed: but they should, in no case, pronounce confidently, or decide dogmatically upon them.

It seems therefore to be going too far, to pass an indiscriminate censure on all those, who have proposed their thoughts on the sense of prophecies, not yet completed, though it be ever so clear that a wrong construction has been made of them. Nay, it is worth considering whether they may not even have conjectured right, when they have been thought to mistake the most widely. I say this, chiefly, with regard to the _time_, which some writers have beforehand assigned for the accomplishment of certain prophecies, and that, on principles apparently contained in those prophecies; but so unhappily, as to draw much scorn and ridicule upon themselves.

I explain myself by a famous instance. Nothing has been more censured in Protestant divines, than their temerity in fixing _the fall of Antichrist_; though there are certain data in the prophecies, from which very probable conclusions on that subject may be drawn. Experience, it is said, contradicts their calculation. But it is not considered, that the fall of Antichrist, is not _a single event_, to happen all at once; but _a state of things_, to continue through a long tract of time, and to be gradually accomplished. Hence, the interpretation of the prophecy might be rightly formed, though the expectations of most men are disappointed.

It is visible, I suppose, that the papal power (if we agree to call that, _Antichrist_) is now on the decline; whensoever that declension began, or how long soever it may be, before it will be finished. And therefore interpreters may have aimed right, though they seemed to others, and perhaps to themselves, to be mistaken.

Suppose, the ruin of the Western Empire had been the subject of a prediction, and some had collected, beforehand, from the terms of the prophecy, that it would happen at a _particular_ time; when yet nothing more, in fact, came to pass, than _the first irruption of the barbarous nations_. Would it be certain that this collection was groundless and ill made, because the empire subsisted in a good degree of vigour for some centuries after? Might it not be said, that the empire _was falling_[149] from that æra, or perhaps before; though, in the event, it _fell_ not, till its sovereignty was shaken by the rude hands of Attila, or rather, till it was laid flat by the well-directed force of Theodoric?

But we have an instance in point, recorded in sacred scripture. It had been gathered from the old prophecies[150], that, _in the last times_, (that is, when the Messiah was come) _a new earth and new heavens should be created_. The style is symbolical; but the meaning is, and was so understood to be, that a new Law should be given to mankind and prevail over the whole world. This Law was accordingly promulged and began to prevail in the days of the Apostles. Yet there were some who said, _Where is the promise of his coming? for, since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue, as they were from the creation of the world._ It was taken for granted, we see, that this great and glorious work, equivalent to the production of a new world, would take place suddenly and at once; which not being the case, it seemed to follow, that the prophecies were false, or at least ill understood: when yet, surely, they were then fulfilling under the eyes of these _scoffers_.

It will be considered, how far these hints may go towards rescuing some respectable interpreters (for I speak only of such) from that contempt, which has fallen upon them, and, from them, on the prophecies themselves, for some hazardous conclusions, or, (if you will) predictions, formed and given out by them, concerning the reign and fall of Antichrist. My meaning, however, is not to make myself responsible for these conclusions. They may not be rightly drawn from the premises, laid down; or the premises may be such, that the precise date of those transactions cannot be determined from them, at least, not, till the scene of prophecy be closed, or, in the prophetic language, _till the mystery of God be finished_[151]. In the mean time, it is not clear and undeniable that there is no ground at all for such conjectures: or, if it were, it would only follow that they, who made them, had been rash and indiscreet in commenting too minutely and confidently on prophecies unfulfilled; and it would be weak, as we have seen, to contract a prejudice against the subject itself from the mistakes of such commentators.

V. After all, the main and master prejudice, I doubt, is, that levity of mind which disposes too many to take their notions on this, and other subjects of moment, from certain polite and popular, it may be, but frivolous and libertine writers: men, who have no religion, or not enough to venerate the prophetic scriptures; who have no knowledge, or certainly not enough to understand them.

But with such cavillers, as these, I have no concern; this Lecture, and the subject of it, being addressed to men of another character, to fair, candid, sober, and enlightened inquirers, only: For so the inspired person, who first announced these wonders concerning Antichrist, to mankind, expressly declares, or rather prophesies—_None of the wicked shall understand: but_ THE WISE _shall understand_[152].

SERMON IX.

THE PROPHETIC STYLE CONSIDERED.

EZEKIEL xx. 49.

—_They say of me, Doth he not speak Parables?_

In recounting the various prejudices, which have diverted many persons from giving a due attention to the prophecies concerning Antichrist, I may be thought to have overlooked ONE of the most considerable; which ariseth from _the peculiar style, in which they are delivered_. But this being a subject of larger compass, and nicer inquiry, than the rest, (in which, too, the credit of all the prophetic scriptures, as well as those respecting Antichrist, is concerned) I have purposely reserved it for a distinct and separate examination.

WITHOUT DOUBT, a plain man, brought up in our customs and notions, and unacquainted with theological studies, when he first turns himself to the contemplation of the Jewish and Christian prophecies, will be surprised, perhaps disgusted, to find, that he understands little, or nothing of them. His _modesty_ may incline him to think, that such writings are too mysterious for his comprehension: or, his _laziness and presumption_ may dispose him to reject them, at once, as perfectly unintelligible; to consider the language of them, as a jargon, to which no ideas are annexed; or, at least, as a kind of cypher, of so wild and fanatical a texture, that no clear and certain construction can be made of it.

Now, this prejudice, whichever way it points, will be obviated, if it can be shewn,

1. That the prophetic style was of common and approved use, in the times when the prophecies were delivered, and among the people to whom they were addressed.

And

2. That this style, how dark or fanciful soever it may appear, is yet _reducible to rule_; that is, is constructed on such principles, as make it the subject of just criticism and reasonable interpretation; and, in particular, to us, at this day.

For a language is not _fanatical_, that is authorised by general practice; nor can it be deemed _unintelligible_, when it is capable of having its meaning ascertained.

I. The proof of these two points will most conveniently be given together, in a deduction of the causes, which produced the character of the prophetic style.

That character, I believe, is truly given by those who affirm, That the style of the prophets was only the poetical, and highly figurative style of the Eastern nations. But if you go farther and ask, How it came to pass, that the oriental poetry was so much more figurative than ours, it may not be enough to say, as many others have done, that this difference of character was owing to the influence of the sun, and to the superior heat and fervour, which it gave to an eastern imagination. For I know not whether there be reason to think, that the sun hath any such effect on the powers of the mind; or that the fancies of men are apter to catch, and blaze out in metaphor, within a warm climate, than a cold one: a figurative cast of style being observable in the native poetry of all countries; and that, so far as appears from history and experience, in a pretty equal degree.

Besides, if the fact were allowed, the answer would scarce be sufficient. For, as we shall presently see, the symbolic language of Prophecy, is too consistent and uniform, hath too much of art and method in it, to be derived from the casual flights and sallies of the imagination _only_, how powerfully soever you suppose it to have operated in the prophets.

We then must go much deeper for a true account of the emblematic and highly coloured expression, which glares so strongly in the prophetic scriptures: and we shall find it, partly, in the nature of the human mind; and, partly, in the genius, indeed, of the oriental nations, and especially of the Jews, but as fashioned, not by the influence of their climate, but by the modes of their learning and institution.

I must be as brief as possible, on a subject, which many learned writers[153] have largely and fully discussed; and, as the reflexions I have to offer to you upon it, are chiefly taken from them, I may the rather bespeak your attention to what follows.

1. First, then, let it be observed, that the original language of all nations is extremely imperfect. Their stock of words being small, they explain themselves very much by _signs_, or representative actions: and their conceptions, in that early state of society, being gross and rude, the few words they have, are replete with material images, and so are what we call highly metaphorical; and this, not from choice or design, or even from any extraordinary warmth of fancy, but of necessity, and from the very nature of things.

Such is the primitive character of all languages: and it continues long in all, because the figurative manner is thought ornamental, when it is no longer necessary; and because the necessity of it is only, if at all, removed by long use and habit in abstract speculation: a degree of refinement, to which the orientals, and the Jews especially, never attained. And therefore in their languages, very long

—_Manserunt, hodieque manent vestigia ruris._

Thus far we may go in accounting for the figured style of the east, from general principles. But this is by no means the whole of the case. For

2. We are to reflect, that, before an alphabet was invented, and what we call literary writing was formed into an art, men had no way to record their conceptions, or to convey them to others at a distance, but by setting down the figures and shapes of such things, as were the objects of their contemplation. Hence, the way of writing in _picture_, was as universal, and almost as early, as the way of speaking in _metaphor_; and from the same reason, the necessity of the thing.

In process of time, and through many successive improvements, this rude and simple mode of _picture-writing_ was succeeded by that of _symbols_, or was enlarged at least, and enriched by it. By symbols, I mean certain representative marks, rather than express pictures; or if pictures, such as were at the same time _characters_, and, besides presenting to the eye the resemblance of a particular object, suggested a general idea to the mind. As, when a _horn_ was made to denote _strength_, an _eye and scepter_, _majesty_, and in numberless such instances; where the picture was not drawn to express merely the thing itself, but something else, which was, or was conceived to be, analogous to it. This more complex and ingenious form of picture-writing was much practised by the Egyptians, and is that which we know by the name of HIEROGLYPHICS.

Indeed, these _symbolic characters_ were likely, in a course of successive refinements, to pass into characters by _institution_: and have, in fact, undergone that change among the Chinese: and it might be expected that _both_ would be laid aside by any people that should come to be acquainted with the far more convenient and expeditious method of alphabetic writing. But the event, in some instances, hath been different. The Chinese adhere to their _characters_, though from their late intercourse with the European nations, one cannot but suppose, that the knowledge of _letters_ has been conveyed to them: and the Egyptians, through all the extent of their long subsisting and highly polished empire, retained their _hieroglyphics_, notwithstanding their invention and use of an _alphabet_.

Their inducement to this practice might be, the pleasure they took in a mode of writing, which gratified their inventive curiosity in looking into the natures and analogies of things; or, it might be a strain of policy in them to secrete by this means, their more important discoveries from the vulgar; or, vanity might put them on raising the value of their knowledge by wrapping it up in a vehicle, so amusing at the same time, and mysterious.

What account soever be given of it, the fact is, that the Egyptians cultivated the hieroglyphic species of writing, with peculiar diligence; while the antiquity, the splendor, the fame of that mighty kingdom excited a veneration for it, in the rest of the world. Hence it came to pass, that the learning of those times, which was spread from Egypt, as from its center, took a strong tincture of the hieroglyphic spirit. The East was wholly infected by it; so that it became the pride of its wise men to try the reach of each other’s capacity by questions conceived and proposed in this form. Even the Greeks, in much later ages, caught the manner of symbolizing their conceptions from Egypt; and either drew their mythology from that quarter, or dressed it out in the old Egyptian garb. But the Israelites, especially, who had their breeding in that country, at the time when the hieroglyphic learning was at its height, carried this treasure with them, among their other _spoils_, into the land of Canaan. And, though it be credible that their great Law-giver interdicted the use of hieroglyphic characters, yet the ideas of them were deeply imprinted on their minds, and came out, on every occasion, in those symbols and emblems, with which, under the names of _riddles_, _parables_, and _dark sayings_, their writings are so curiously variegated and imbossed.

This then is the true and proper account of that peculiar style, which looks so strangely, and to those, who do not advert to this original of it, perhaps so fantastically, in the writings of the prophets. And what more natural, than that a mode of expression, which was so well known, so commonly practised, and so much revered; which was effected by the wittiest, nay, by the wisest men of those times; which was employed in the theology of the Eastern world, in its poetry, its philosophy, and all the sublimer forms of composition; What wonder, I say, that this customary, this authorized, this admired strain of language should be that in which the sacred writers conveyed their highest and most important revelations to mankind?

Nor let any man take offence at the condescension of the divine Inspirer, as though he degraded himself, by his compliance with the humours and fancies of those to whom his inspirations were addressed. For let him reflect, that in what form of words soever it shall please God to communicate himself to man, it must still be in a way, that implies the utmost, indeed the same, condescension to our weaknesses and infirmities; nay, that immediate inspiration itself, though coming through no medium of language, is of necessity to be accommodated to our methods of perceiving and understanding, how imperfect soever they are.

Besides, if external revelation be possible, it must be given in some one mode of speech or writing, in preference to others. And, if we consider how ancient, how general, how widely diffused, this symbolic style has been, and still is, in the world; how necessary it is to rude nations, and how taking with the most refined; how large a proportion of the globe this practice had over-run before, and at the time of writing the prophecies, and what vast regions of the South and East, not yet professing the faith, but hereafter, as we presume, to be enlightened by it, the same practice, at this day, overspreads; when we consider all this, we shall cease perhaps to admire, that the style in question was adopted, rather than any other; or we shall only admire the divine goodness and wisdom of its Author, who had contrived beforehand, in the very form of this revelation, what may possibly help to bring on and facilitate the reception of it. Certainly, it may become us, on such an occasion, to enlarge our ideas a little; and not to conclude hastily and peremptorily that, when a general blessing was intended by Providence, the mode of conveying it should be instituted singly with an eye to our local notions and confined prejudices, and with no regard to the more prevailing sentiments and expectations of mankind.

In the mean time, it is past a doubt that the hieroglyphic style was predominant in the ancient world; in Judæa, particularly, from the times of Moses to the coming of Christ. There was indeed a degree of obscurity in it, so far at least as to furnish the Jews, who had no mind to listen to their Prophets, with a pretence of not understanding them (as we see from the complaint brought against the prophet Ezekiel in the text, _Doth he not speak Parables?_) yet still, it cannot be denied, _That this mode of writing was of common and approved use in the ages, when the prophecies were delivered, and among the people, to whom they were addressed_.

Our FIRST proposition is then reasonably made out; and so much of the SECOND, as affirms that the prophetic style _is constructed on such principles as make it the subject of just criticism and rational interpretation_. For it was constructed, as we have seen, on the symbolic principles of the hieroglyphics; which were not vague uncertain things; but fixed and constant analogies, determinable in their own nature, or from the steady use that was made of them. And a language, formed on such principles, may be reasonably interpreted upon them. So that what remains is only to shew, that there _are_ means, by which this abstruse language may become intelligible to us, at this day.

II. That there are such means, you will easily collect, without requiring me to come to a detail on so immense a subject, from the following considerations.

1. Some light may be expected to arise from the study of the prophecies themselves. For the same symbols, or figures, recur frequently in those writings: and, by comparing one passage with another; the darker prophecies with the more perspicuous; the unfulfilled, with such as have been completed; and those which have their explanation annexed to them, with those that have not; by this course of inquiry, I say, there is no doubt but some considerable progress may be made in fixing the true and proper meaning of this mysterious language.

2. Very much of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, on which, as we have seen, the prophetic style was fashioned, may be learned from many ancient records and monuments, still subsisting; and from innumerable hints and passages, scattered through the Greek antiquaries and historians, which have been carefully collected and compared by learned men.

3. The Pagan superstitions of every form and species, which were either derived from Egypt, or conducted on hieroglyphic notions, have been of singular use in commenting on the Jewish prophets. Their Omens, Augury, and Judicial Astrology seem to have proceeded on symbolic principles; the mystery being only this, That such objects, as in the hieroglyphic pictures, were made the symbols of certain ideas, were considered as omens of the things themselves. Thus, the figure of a _horse_, being the symbol of prosperity and success in arms, when a _head_ of this animal was found in laying the foundations of Carthage, the Soothsayers concluded, that the character of that state would be warlike, and its fortune prosperous: or, thus again, because the _sun_ was the common emblem of a King, or supreme governor in any state, an _eclipse_ of this luminary was thought to indicate the ruin, or diminution, at least, of his power and fortune; and the superstition is not quite extinct at this day[154].

But, of all the Pagan superstitions, that which is known by the name of _Oneirocritics_, or the art of interpreting dreams, is most directly to our purpose. There is a curious treatise on this subject, which bears the name of Achmet, an Arabian writer; and another by Artemidorus, an Ephesian, who lived about the end of the first century[155]. In the former of these collections (for both works are compiled out of preceding and very ancient writers) the manner of interpreting dreams, according to the use of the Oriental nations, is delivered; as the rules, which the Græcian diviners followed, are deduced in the other. For, light and frivolous as this art was, it is not to be supposed that it was taken up at hazard, or could be conducted without rule; an arbitrary or capricious interpretation of dreams, considered as a mode of divination, being too gross an insult on the common sense of mankind[156]. But the rules, by which both the Greek and Oriental diviners justified their interpretations, appear to have been formed on symbolic principles, that is, on the very same ideas of analogy, by which the Egyptian hieroglyphics (now grown venerable, and even sacred) were explained. So that the prophetic style, which is all over painted with hieroglyphic imagery, receives an evident illustration from these two works.

I have said, that this superstition was _more immediately to our purpose, than any other_. For some of the more important prophecies are delivered in the way of dreams; and therefore, without doubt, the rules for interpreting the symbols presented to the mind of the prophet in these inspired dreams, were the very same with those, that were laid down in the Gentile Oneirocritics. The conclusion, I know, may appear bold and hazardous. But you will reflect that there is really nothing more strange in applying this mode of interpretation to _dreams_, than to any other species of prophecy; to visions, for instance, or parables, or even, in general, to any part of the prophetic style. The compliance, on the part of the inspirer, is the same on every supposition; and only shews that, when the Deity thinks fit to reveal himself to men, he does it in a way that is suitable to their ideas and apprehensions. Nor is any sanction, in the mean time, given, by this accommodation of himself, to the pagan practice of divining by dreams. For, though the same symbols be interpreted in the same manner, yet the _prophecy_ doth not depend on the interpretation, but the inspiration of the dream. A casual dream, thus interpreted, is only a dream still; the received sense of the symbols, represented in it, no way inferring the completion of it. But when the Almighty sends the dream, the symbols are of another consideration, and not only signify, but _predict_, an event.

Now, if men will mistake a _barely significant emblem_, for _a prophetic inspiration_, the fault is in themselves, and not in the use of the common emblems; which may be the vehicle of a true prophecy, though craft or superstition take occasion from them to _divine lies_[157]. It follows, that the rules, which the ancient diviners observed in explaining symbolic dreams, may be safely and justly applied to the interpretation of symbolic prophecies, and especially to such of them as were delivered in the form of dreams.

4. It is lastly to be observed, that not only the Arabic and other Oriental writers, but even the Greek and Latin poets, may contribute very much to the exposition of the ancient prophets. For these poets abound in strong metaphors and glowing images, which were either copied from the symbolic language of the East, or invented on the same principles of analogy as prevailed in the Egyptian hieroglyphics. So that many expressions, which seem dark and strange in the writings of the Jewish prophets, may be clearly illustrated and familiarized to us, even from classic usage and example.

And now from these several sources; that is, from _the scriptures themselves_—from the still _subsisting monuments of Egyptian hieroglyphics_—from _the Gentile ceremonies and superstitions_—and from _the greater works of genius and fancy, transmitted to us both from the Eastern and Western poets_—such a vocabulary of the prophetic terms and symbols may be, nay hath been[158], drawn up, as serves to determine the sense of them in the same manner, as any common art or language is explained by its own proper key, or dictionary; and there is, in truth, no more difficulty in fixing the import of the prophetic style, than of any other language or technical phraseology whatsoever.

III. But, if the case be so clear, you may now be tempted to ask, “What then becomes of the obscurity, in which the prophecies are said to be involved; and in particular, how comes it to pass, that they may not be as well explained, before the completion, as after it[159]; which yet is constantly denied by writers on this subject, and, even, by your own principles, cannot be supposed?”

To this objection, I shall not reply by saying, That the style of the prophets, though intelligible, yet requires much practice in the interpreter to unfold its meaning; for that is the case of many other arts and sciences, which yet are generally understood: nor, that the symbolic terms are frequently capable of several senses, which must needs perplex the interpretation; for there is no common language, in which the plainest words do not frequently admit the same difference of construction, which yet creates no great difficulty to those who attend closely to the scope of a writer: I shall not therefore, I say, amuse you with these evasive answers, but reply, directly to the purpose of your inquiry, by observing,

“That there are several methods, or, if you will, artifices, by which the inspired writers, under the cover of a symbolic expression, and sometimes even without it, might effectually conceal their meaning, before the completion of a prophecy, though the language, in which they write, be clearly explicable on fixed and stated rules.”

1. When the prophecy is of remote events, the _subject_ is frequently not announced, or announced only in general terms. Thus, an _earthquake_ is described—a _mountain_ is said to be thrown down—a _star_, to fall from heaven; and so in numberless other instances. Now, an earthquake, in hieroglyphic language, denotes a _revolution in government_; a mountain is the symbol of a _kingdom_, or _capital city_; a star, of _a prince_, or _great man_: but of _what_ government, of _what_ kingdom, of _what_ prince, the prophet speaks, we are not told, and are frequently unable to find out, till a full coincidence of all circumstances, in the event, discloses the secret.

2. The prophetic terms are not only figurative, but sometimes, and in no common degree, hyperbolical (of which the reason will be given hereafter), so that nothing but the event can determine the true size and value of them. This seems to have been the case of those prophecies in the Old Testament, which describe the tranquillity and felicity of Christ’s kingdom; and may possibly be the case of those prophecies in the New, which respect the Millennium.

3. It being the genius of the prophetic style to be ænigmatical, this cast is sometimes purposely given to it, even when the expression is most plain and direct. Thus Jeremiah prophesies of Zedekiah, king of Judah, _that he should be delivered into the hands of the king of Babylon, that his eyes should behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and that he should go to Babylon_[160]. Ezekiel, prophesying of the same prince, says, _that he should go to Babylon, but that he should not see it, though he should die there_[161]. Now Josephus tells us, that the apparent inconsistency of these two prophecies determined Zedekiah to believe neither of them. Yet both were strictly and punctually fulfilled.

4. Lastly, the chief difficulty of all lies in a circumstance, not much observed by interpreters, and, from the nature of it, not _observable_, till after the event; I mean, in _a mixed use of the plain and figured style_: so that the prophetic descriptions are sometimes _literal_, even when they appear most figurative; and sometimes, again, they are highly _figurative_, when they appear most plain. An instance of _literal_ expression, under the mask of figurative, occurs in the prophet Nahum, who predicts the overthrow of Nineveh in these words—_With an over-running flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof_, [Nahum i. 8.] An _over-running flood_, is the hieroglyphic symbol of _desolation by a victorious enemy_: and in this highly figurative sense, an interpreter of the prophecy would, in all likelihood, understand the expression. But the event shewed the sense to be literal; that city being taken, as we know from history, by means of an _inundation_. Of _figurative_ expression, under the form of literal, take the following instance from a prophecy, of Christ himself; who says to the Jews, _Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days_, [John i. 19.] It was natural enough for the Jews to understand our Lord as speaking of the _temple_ at Jerusalem; the rather, as this term had not been, and, I think, could, not be, applied, to any person, before Jesus: to _Him_, it might be so applied; and we know that _he spake of the temple of his body_, [ver. 21.]

The same equivocal use was, sometimes, purposely made of _proverbial expressions_, as learned men have observed[162].

I omit many other causes of obscurity in the prophecies; such as the seeming incredibility, sometimes, of the things predicted—the undefined chronology and geography—the intricacy of the method—and many other considerations. But you will collect from these brief hints, respecting the _expression_ only, that, though the symbolic language be reducible to rule, and therefore, in the main, sufficiently intelligible, yet that there is room enough for the introduction of so much obscurity into the prophetic writings, as may answer the ends of the inspirer, and conceal the full meaning of them from the most sagacious interpreter, till it be revealed, in due time, by the event.

Or, if it be thought that such difficulties as the event removes, are not, in their own nature, invincible, before it happens, it is still to be considered, that the giver of the prophecy is, by supposition, divine; and as he, therefore, foresaw, in framing the texture of it, that such difficulties would, in fact, be invincible, they served the purpose of a designed concealment just as well, as if, in nature, they were. Whence the conclusion is still the same, That the prophetic style might be the cover of impenetrable obscurities in a prophecy, before its completion, and yet the terms of it be clearly explicable on established rules; the event only enabling the expositor more skilfully and properly to apply those rules.