Chapter VI: Part 6

IV. To conclude this subject; It will now be acknowledged, that the suspicions which have been taken up against the prophetic way of writing, as if it were vague, illusory, or unintelligible, are utterly without foundation. The style of the prophets was the known, authorized style of their age and country, in all writings especially, of a sacred or solemn character; and is even yet in use with a great part of mankind. It further appears, that, as it was understood by those to whom it was addressed, so the principles, on which it was formed, are discoverable by many obvious methods, and may be applied, with success, to the interpretation of it, at this day.

The prophetic style is, then, a _sober and reasonable_ mode of expression. But this is not all. We may, even, discern the _expediency_, I had almost said, the _necessity_, of this style, considered as the _medium_, or vehicle of prophetic inspiration.

For we have seen, that the scheme of scriptural prophecy extends through all time; and is so contrived as to adumbrate future and more illustrious events, in preceding and less important transactions: a circumstance, which shews the harmony and connexion of the whole scheme, and is not imitable by any human art, or forethought whatsoever. But now a figurative style is so proper to that end, that we scarcely conceive how it could be accomplished by any other. For thus the expression conforms, at once, to the type, and antitype: it is, as it were, a robe of state, for the one; and only, the ordinary, accustomed dress of the other: as we may see from the prophecies, which _immediately_ respect the restoration of the Jews from their ancient captivities, and, _ultimately_, their final triumphant return from their present dispersion—from the prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, which prefigure, at the same time, the day of judgment—from those concerning the first coming of Christ, which, also, set forth his reign with the saints on earth, and even the glories of his heavenly kingdom—and in a multitude of other instances.

These successive, and so different, schemes of Providence could only be signified _together_ in a mode of language, that contracted, or enlarged itself, as the occasion required. But such is the singular property of a symbolic style. For none but this, hath fold and drapery enough, if I may so speak, to invest the _greater_ subjects; while yet (so complying is the texture of this expression) it readily adapts itself to the _less considerable_, which it ennobles only, and not disfigures. The difference is, that what is a metaphor in the former case, becomes an hyperbole in the latter. And this double use of the same symbol, is the true account of such figures as are thought most extravagant in the description of the prophets.

We see, then, in every view, how reasonable, how expedient, how divine, the symbolic style is, in such writings as the prophetic. So that if any be disposed, in our days, to take up the complaint of the text, and to up-braid the prophets by asking, _Do they not speak Parables?_ We may now take courage to answer, Yes: but _parables_, which, as dark as they are accounted to be, may be well understood; and, what is more, _parables_, which are so expressed, as to carry an evidence in themselves that they _are_ what they assume to be, of divine inspiration.

SERMON X.

THE STYLE AND METHOD OF THE APOCALYPSE.

EZEKIEL xx. 49.

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

All the prophecies of the Old and New Testament are written in _parables_; that is, in highly figurative terms; which yet, on examination, have appeared to be explicable on certain fixed and rational grounds of criticism.

So far, therefore, as any prejudice may have been entertained against the prophecies concerning Antichrist, as if the language of them were too abstruse or fanciful to be understood, enough hath been already said to shew, that it is not well founded.

It must, however, be confessed, that the book of _Revelations_[163], which contains the most, and the chief prophecies on the subject of Antichrist, is of a deeper and more mysterious contrivance, than any other of the prophetic writings. Whence, our next step, in this inquiry, must be, To trace the CAUSES of that peculiar obscurity; and to suggest, as we go along, the MEANS, by which it hath been, or may be, removed.

The _causes_, are to be sought in the STYLE, and the METHOD, of that book. I say nothing of the _subject_; for, though the _things predicted_ may darken a prophecy, unfulfilled, the _event_ will shew what they are; and it is not necessary, that we should anxiously inquire into the meaning of a prophecy, till it be accomplished.

I. _First_, then, the STYLE of the Revelations (for I mean not to consider it, with regard to the Greek tongue, in which it is composed, or, to the Hebrew idiom, with which it is coloured) The _style_, I say, being symbolical, like that of the other prophecies, must, in general, be explained on the same principles, that is, must be equally intelligible, in both. Yet, if we attend nicely to the style of this prophecy, some difference will be found, in _the choice of the symbols_, and in _the continuity of the symbolic form_.

1. To explain my meaning, on the first article, I must observe, That, though the prophetic style abounds in _hieroglyphic_ symbols, properly so called, yet the Israelites, when they adopted that style, did not confine themselves to the old Egyptian stock of symbols; but, working on the same ground of analogy, superadded many others, which their own circumstances and observations suggested to them. Their divine ritual, their civil customs, their marvellous history, and even the face and aspect of their country, afforded infinite materials for the construction of fresh symbols: and these, when they came into common use, their prophets freely and largely employed. Thus, _incense_, from the religious use of it in the Mosaical service, denotes _prayer_, or _mental adoration_[164]—_to tread a wine-press_, from their custom of pressing grapes, signifies _destruction, attended with great slaughter_[165]—_to give water in the wilderness_, in allusion to the miraculous supply of that element, during the passage of the Israelites through the wilderness to the holy land, is the emblem of _unexpected relief in distress_[166];—and, to mention no more, a _forest_, such as Lebanon, abounding in lofty cedars, represents a _great city, with its flourishing ranks of inhabitants_[167]; just as, a _mountain_, from the situation of the Jewish temple on mount Moria, is made to stand for the _Christian Church_[168].

Now, though the symbols of this class be occasionally dispersed through the old prophets, yet they are more frequent, and much thicker sown, in the Revelations: so that to a reader, not well versed in the Jewish story and customs, this difference may add something to the obscurity of the book.

If you ask the _reason_ of this difference, it is plainly this. The scene of the apocalyptic visions is laid, not only in Judæa, but in the temple at Jerusalem; whence the imagery is, of course, taken. It was natural for the writer to draw his allusions from Jewish objects, and especially from the ceremonial of the temple-service. Besides, the declared scope of the prophecy being to predict the fortunes of the Christian church, what so proper as to do this under the cover of Jewish ideas; the law itself, as we have before seen, and as St. Paul expressly tells us, having been so contrived, as to present the _shadow_ of that future dispensation?

This then (and for the reason assigned) is ONE distinguishing character of the Apocalyptic style. But the difficulty of interpretation, arising from it, cannot be considerable; or, if it be, may be overcome by an obvious method, by a careful study of the Jewish history and law.

2. The OTHER mark of distinction, which I observed in the style of this book, is the _continuity_ of the symbolic manner. Parables are frequent, indeed, in the old prophets, but interspersed with many passages of history, and have very often their explanation annexed. This great parable of St. John is, throughout, carried on in its own proper form, without any such interruption, and, except in _one_ instance[169], without any express interpretation of the parabolic terms.

Now, the prophecy, no doubt, must be considerably obscured by this circumstance. But then let it be considered, that we have proportionable _means_ of understanding it. For, if the symbols be continued, they are still but the _same_[170], as had been before in use with the elder prophets; whose writings, therefore, are the proper and the certain key of the _Revelations_.

From these distinctive characters, then, of the Apocalyptic style[171], nothing more can be inferred, than the necessity of studying _the Law, and the Prophets_, in order to understand the language of this last and most mysterious revelation. And what is more natural, nay what can be thought more divine, than that, in a system, composed of two dependent dispensations, the study of the former should be made necessary to the comprehension of the latter; and that the very uniformity of style and colouring, in the two sets of prophecies, should admonish us of the intimate connexion, which each has with the other, to the end that we might the better conceive the meaning, and fathom the depth, of the divine councils in _both_?

But, without speculating further on the final purposes of this Judaical and Symbolical character, so strongly impressed on the Apocalypse, it must evidently appear that the difficulties of interpretation, occasioned by it, are not invincible; nay, that, to an attentive and rightly prepared interpreter, they will be scarce any difficulties at all[172].

I proceed, then,

II. To the SECOND, and more considerable cause of the obscurities, found in this prophecy, the METHOD, in which it is composed.

The other prophecies have, doubtless, their difficulties, arising from the abrupt manner, in which, agreeably to the Oriental genius, they are delivered: But then, being short and unconnected with each other, the apparent disorder of those prophecies, has rarely any sensible effect in preventing the right application of them. The case is different with the prophecies, contained in this book. For, having been all delivered at once, and respecting a series of events, which were to come to pass successively in the history of the Christian Church, it is reasonable to expect that some certain and determinable method should be observed in the delivery of them; and the true secret of that method, whatever it be, must be investigated, before we can, with success, apply any single prophecy to its proper subject.

The _first_, and most obvious expectation of a reader is, that the events predicted in this prophecy should follow each other in the order of the prophecy itself, or that the series of the visions should mark out and determine the succession of the subjects, to which they relate. But there is reason to think, on the face of the prophecy, that this method is not observed.

A _second_ conclusion would, then, be hastily taken up, that there is no regular method at all in these visions, but that each is to be applied singly, and without any reference to the rest, to such events as it might be found, in some tolerable degree, to suit: And then it is plain, that fancy would have too much scope afforded her in the interpretation of these visions, to produce any firm and settled conviction, that they were rightly and properly applied. Yet, as this idea of the Apocalypse would favour the laziness, the precipitancy, the presumption, and, very often, the malignity of the human mind, it is no wonder that it should be readily and eagerly embraced. And, in fact, it was to this pre-conceived notion of a general disorder in the texture of these prophecies, that the little progress, which, for many ages, had been made in the exposition of them, is chiefly to be ascribed.

But then, _lastly_, if neither the order of the prophecy be that of the events, nor a total disorder in the construction of it can be reasonably allowed, the question is, By what _rules_ was it composed, and on what ideas of _method_ is it to be explained?

This question, as obvious as it seems, was not presently asked; and, when it was asked, not easily answered. The clear light, indeed, which the Reformation had let in on some parts bf this prophecy, and a spirit of inquiry, which sprung up with the revival of Letters, excited a general attention to this mysterious book. But, as each interpreter brought his own hypothesis along with him, the perplexities of it were not lessened, but increased by so many discordant schemes of interpretation: And the issue of much elaborate inquiry was, that the book itself was disgraced by the fruitless efforts of its commentators, and on the point of being given up, as utterly impenetrable, when a sublime Genius arose, in the beginning of the last century, and surprised the learned world with that great desideratum, _A Key to the Revelations_.

This extraordinary person was, JOSEPH MEDE: of whose character it may not be improper to give a slight sketch, before I lay before you the substance of his discoveries.

HE was a candid, sincere man; disinterested, and unambitious; of no faction in religion or government (both which began in his time to be overrun with factions) but solely devoted to the love of truth, and to the investigation of it. His learning was vast, but well chosen and well digested; and his understanding, in no common degree, strong and capacious.

With these qualities of the head and heart, he came to the study of the prophecies, and especially of the Revelations: But, with so little _bigotry_ for the scheme of interpretation concerning Antichrist, that, as he tells us himself, _he had even conceived some prejudice against it_[173]: And, what is stranger still in a man of his inventive genius, with so little _enthusiasm_ in his temper for _any_ scheme of interpretation whatsoever, that, when he had made his great discovery, he was in no haste to publish it to the world[174]; and, when at length he did this, he was still less in haste to apply it, that is, to shew its important use in explaining the Apocalyptic visions[175]. Cool, deliberate, and severe, in forming his judgments, he was so far from being obsequious to the fancies of other men, that he was determined only, by the last degree of evidence, to acquiesce in any conclusions of his own[176].

In short, with no _vanity_ to indulge, (for he was superior to this last infirmity of ingenious men[177])—with no _interest_ in view (for the interest of Churchmen lay at that time, as he well understood, in a different quarter[178])—with no _spleen_ to gratify (for even neglect and solitude could not engender this unmanly vice in him[179])—with no oblique purposes, I say, which so often mislead the pens of other writers, but with the single, unmixed love of truth, he dedicated his great talents to the study of the prophetic Scriptures, and was able to unfold, in the MANNER I am now to represent to you, this mysterious prophecy of the Revelations.

He had observed, that the miscarriage of former interpreters had been owing, chiefly, to a vain desire of finding their own sense in this prophecy, rather than the sense of the prophet. Laying aside, then, all hypotheses whatsoever, he sate down to the book itself, and resolved to know nothing more of it, than what the frame and texture of its composition might clearly reveal to him. He considered the whole, as a naked recital of facts, literally expressed; and not as a prophetic scheme, mystically represented. In this way of inquiry, he discerned, that several parts of the history, whatever their secret and involved meaning might be, were _homogeneous_, and _contemporary_; that is, they related to the same subject, and were comprised within the same period; and this, though they were not connected in the order of the narration, but lay dispersed in different quarters of it. These several sets of historical passages (or, of _Visions_, to speak in the language of the book itself) he carefully analyzed and compared; shewed, from circumstances, not imagined, but found, in the history, their mutual relation and correspondency; and established his conclusions, as he went along, not in a loose way of popular conjecture, but in the strictest forms of Geometric reasoning. The coincident histories, thus classed and scrutinized, he distinguished by the name of SYNCHRONISMS; and gave them to the learned world, in this severe scientific form, without further comment or illustration, under the title of CLAVIS APOCALYPTICA, or A KEY TO THE REVELATIONS.

In considering this discovery, which did so much honour to the profound genius and accurate investigation of its author, one clearly perceives how it serves to the end proposed.

_First_, it appears that the order of the Visions is not that of the events; in other words, that the prophecy is not to be so explained, as if the events, predicted in it, followed each other in the same train as the Visions. For the _facts_, which constitute the scheme or fable of the prophecy, literally and historically considered, do not succeed to each other in that train; therefore the _events_, whatever they may be, which those facts adumbrate, most certainly cannot.

_Secondly_, it appears what the true, or chronological order of the Visions, is; namely, that, which the nature and connexion of the things transacted in them, points out and declares. So that, if the real time of any one Vision can be shewn, the relative time of the rest may be easily settled. For (to quote Mr. Mede’s own words) _such Visions as contemporate with that already ascertained, are of course to be applied to the same times; while such as, in the order of the story, precede that Vision, are to be referred to preceding events, and those, which follow it, are in like manner to be explained of subsequent transactions_[180].

By this means, the whole plan or method of the Apocalypse will be laid down. The several synchronical prophecies will thus fall in their proper places; and there will be no doubt of the relative situation, which each holds in the general system.

_Thirdly_, as we now see the true order of the prophecies (though for the wisest reasons, no doubt, the order, in which they are delivered, be sometimes different) so it is to be observed, that the knowledge of this order is a great restraint on the fancy of an expositor; who is not now at liberty to apply the prophecies to events of any time, to which they appear to suit, but to events only falling within that time, to which they belong in the course of this pre-determined method. And if to this restriction, which of itself is considerable, we add _another_, which arises from the necessity of applying, not one, but many prophecies (which are, thus, shewn to synchronize with each other) to the _same_ time, we can hardly conceive how an interpretation should keep clear of these impediments, and make its way through so many interfering checks, unless it be the _true_ one. Just as when a Lock (to take the author’s allusion) is composed of many, and intricate wards, the _Key_, that turns easily within them, and opens the Lock, can only be that which properly belongs to it.

After all, it may be difficult, I know, to convey a distinct idea of the uses, to which this synchronal method serves, to those who have not read, and even studied, Mr. Mede’s work. But the sum of the matter is this, That the order of the events and of the Visions is _not_ the same—that the _true_ order of the events, is to be sought in certain characters, not fancied at pleasure, but inserted, in the Visions themselves—and, lastly, that the whole book of the Revelations being thus resolvable into a particular determinate order, in which the several sets of synchronal prophecies regularly succeed to each other, no exposition of this book can be admitted, that does not refer every single prophecy to its true place in the system, and provide at the same time that no violence be done to any other prophecies, which synchronize with it.

And thus much concerning the TRUE ORDER of the Apocalypse; deduced, you see, from no precarious hypothetic reasonings, but from notes and characters, inclosed in that book; that is, from intrinsic arguments, which have their evidence in themselves, and conclude alike on every supposition.

If we would know more distinctly what the EXTERIOR FORM of it is; and how it comes to differ so widely from the plan of a chronological arrangement; here, too, our sagacious expositor will give us satisfaction. For, in bringing together and comparing his synchronisms, he found (what had escaped the attention of all others) that the main body of the prophecy is made up of TWO[181] great parts; which are, also, synchronical; so that, setting out from the same goal, and measuring the same space, they both concur in the same end: but with this difference, that the _former_ division more immediately regards the affairs of the _Empire_; the _latter_, those of the _Church_.

Still, this is not all. Our attentive and penetrating commentator further discovered, That the two great component parts of this prophecy, though distinct, are very artificially connected, and shewn to harmonize throughout with each other, by making the same concluding event[182], once told, the catastrophe of both. For the _former_ part is purposely, and with express warning given[183], left unfinished, till a summary deduction of the _latter_ part down to the same point of time[184], (by way of prelude to the more extended visions of this last part, which follow to the end of the book, and to signify, that both parts are contemporary) furnished the occasion of shutting up the two prophecies together in one common term: which, however, had the appearance of being misplaced, till the detection of this singular contrivance, by means of the synchronisms, pointed out the use and end of the present disposition[185].

_Another_ cause of the seeming perplexity in which this Prophecy is involved, is, That, it being expedient to treat the same subject in different respects, and to give different views of it, according as two sets of men, the true worshipers and the false, were affected by the fortunes of the Christian Church, this shifting and opposite face of things could not be exhibited together; but was to be set forth in several and successive, though contemporary, visions. Hence, the prophecy is thought to proceed, when, in fact, it stands still, and only presents another prospect of the same transactions.

But I enter no farther into the mysterious contexture of this book; through which, however, the clue of the synchronisms, if well pursued, would safely conduct us. It is enough to my purpose to have shewn, That as the _Language_ of the Revelations is intelligible, so the _Method_ is not involved in such intricacies, but that, in general, a regular, a consistent, and, what is more, a _true_[186] conception may be formed of it. Whence no sober man needs be discouraged from reading this book; or will be in danger, I think, of losing either his wits, or his reputation, in the study of it. For what should hinder a book, though of prophecies, from being understood, when its _method_ may be clearly defined, and its _language decyphered_? Provided always, that we only interpret a prophecy by the event, and do not take upon us to determine the event by a premature construction of the prophecy.

With this Apocalyptic key then (of which so much has been said), this _key of knowledge_, in my hands, it may, now, be expected that I should open this _dark parable_ of the Revelation, by applying so much of it, at least, as respects Antichrist, to Apostate Papal Rome. But, besides that there would not, in what remains of this course, be room enough for a detailed account of the prophecies, _other reasons_ restrain me from entering immediately on a task, not less easy perhaps, than amusing. For Interpreters, I think, have generally been too much in haste to apply the prophecies, before they had sufficiently prepared the way for their application: So that, leaving many doubts unresolved, which men of thought and inquiry are apt to entertain on this subject, or not laying before them all the reasons and inducements, which should engage their attention to it, their clearest expositions are not received, and possibly not considered.

With regard, then, to the prophecies, concerning Antichrist, though the chief obstructions in our way seem fairly removed, and it be now evident that there _are_ certain grounds, on which the most abstruse of them may be reasonably interpreted, yet, because the application of them is a work of time and industry, many persons, before they undertake it, may desire to know, What GENERAL ARGUMENTS there are, which may assure them, beforehand, that their labour will not be misemployed, and that Papal Rome is, in fact, concerned in the tenour of these prophecies: And, when this demand has been made, they may further wish to be informed, To what ENDS OR USES this whole inquiry serves; of importance enough, I mean, to encourage and reward their vigorous prosecution of it?

These desires and expectations are apparently not unreasonable: And to satisfy them, in the best manner I can, will be the scope and purpose of the two following Lectures.

SERMON XI.

PROPHETIC CHARACTERS OF ANTICHRIST.

LUKE xii. 56.

—_How is it, that ye do not discern this time?_

So much having been said on the _manner_, in which the prophecies, respecting Antichrist, may be interpreted; I imagine that now, at length, ye are disposed to ask, On what GENERAL GROUNDS we affirm, that the Church of Rome is actually concerned in them.

To resolve this question, it will be sufficient to set before you, in few words, some of the more obvious _notes_, or _characters_, by which Antichrist is marked out in the prophecies: such, and so many of them, as may convince you, that they are fairly applicable to the Church of Rome; and that, taken together, they cannot well admit any other application.

Of these prophetic characters,

I. The FIRST, I shall mention, is, _That we are to look for Antichrist within the proper limits of the Roman empire_.

On this head, there is no controversy among those who acknowledge the authority of the prophet Daniel, and can be none: For that prophet, in his famous vision of the four kingdoms, says expressly, that, _among_ the ten kingdoms into which the fourth, or Roman, shall be divided, ANOTHER _shall arise_[187]; that is, as all interpreters agree, the kingdom of Antichrist. So that this power, whatever it be, must have its birth and seat within the compass of the ten kingdoms, that is, of the Roman empire, when, in some future time from the giving of Daniel’s prophecy, it should be so divided.

But, to fix the station of the Antichristian power more precisely, it is to be observed, that, as the four kingdoms of Daniel, considered in succession to each other, form a _prophetic chronology_[188]; so in another view, they form a _prophetic geography_[189], being considered, in the eye of prophecy, as _co-existent_, as still _alive_, and subsisting together, when the dominion of all, but the last, was taken away[190].

In consequence of this idea, which Daniel gives us of his four kingdoms, so much only is to be reckoned into the description of each kingdom, as is peculiar to each; the remainder being part of some other kingdom, still supposed to be in being, to which it properly belongs. Thus, the SECOND, or Persian kingdom, does not take in the nations of Chaldæa and Assyria, which make the body of the _first_ kingdom; nor the THIRD, or Græcian kingdom, the countries of Media and Persia, being the body of the _second_. In like manner, the FOURTH, or Roman kingdom, does not, in the contemplation of the prophet, comprehend those provinces, which make the body of the _third_, or Græcian kingdom, but such only as constitute its own body, that is, the provinces on this side of Greece: where, therefore, we are to look for the _eleventh_, or Antichristian kingdom, as being to start up _among_ the ten, into which the Roman kingdom should be divided.

We see, then, that, as Antichrist was to arise within the Roman kingdom, so his station is farther limited to the European part of that kingdom, or to the _Western empire_, properly so called.

This observation (which is not mine, but Sir Isaac Newton’s) is the better worth making, because, in fact, the papal sovereignty never extended farther than the Western provinces; at least, could never gain a firm and permanent footing in the countries, which lie East of the Mediterranean sea. But, whether you admit this interpretation, or not, it is still clear that Antichrist was to arise somewhere within the limits of the Roman empire. In what _part_ of that empire he was to make his appearance, we certainly gather from

II. A SECOND prophetical note or character of this power, which is, _That his seat and throne was to be the city of Rome itself_.

The prophet Daniel acquaints us only that the power we call Antichristian, would spring up from _among_ the ruins of the fourth, or Roman kingdom: But St. John, in the _Revelations_, fixes his residence in the _capital city_ of that kingdom. For, when, in one of his visions, he had been shewn a portentous _beast with seven heads and ten horns, and a woman arrayed in purple_, riding upon him, an Angel is made to interpret this symbolic vision in the following words—_The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth—and the ten horns, which thou sawest, are ten kings—and the woman, which thou sawest, is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth_[191].

Words cannot be more determinate, than these. The _woman_, that rides this BEAST, that is, the fourth empire, in its last state of _ten horns_, or divided into ten kingdoms, is that Antichristian power, of which we are now inquiring. She is seated on _seven hills_, nay, she is _that great city, which reigneth_ [that is, in St. John’s time which _reigned_] over the _kingdoms of the earth_. Rome, then, is the throne of Antichrist, or is that city, which shall one day be Antichristian. There is no possibility of evading the force of these terms.

It hath been said, that Constantinople, too, was situated on seven hills. It may be so: But Constantinople did not, in the time of this vision, _reign over the kings of the earth_. Besides, if its _dominion_ had not been mentioned, _the city on seven hills_ is so characteristic of Rome, that the name itself could not have pointed it out more plainly: As must be evident to all those, who recollect, what the Latin writers have said on this subject.

The—_septem domini montes_—of one[192] poet is well known; and seems the abridgement of a still more famous line in another[193]—

_Septem urbs alta jugis, toto quæ præsidet orbi_:

To which, St. John’s idea of a _woman, seated on seven hills, and reigning over the kings of the earth_, so exactly corresponds, that one sees no difference between the poet and the prophet; except that the _latter_ personifies his idea, as the genius of the prophetic style required.

But a passage in Virgil is so much to our purpose, that it merits a peculiar attention. This poet, in the most finished of his works, had been celebrating the praises of a country life, which he makes the source and origin of the Roman greatness.

_Hanc_ olim veteres vitam coluere Sabini;
_Hanc_ Remus et frater: _sic_ fortis Etruria crevit:
Scilicet et rerum facta est pulcherrima Roma[194].

The encomium, we see, is made with that gradual pomp, which is familiar to Virgil. And the last line (from its majestic simplicity, the noblest, perhaps, in all his writings) one would naturally expect should close the description. Yet he adds, to the surprize, and, I believe, to the disappointment of most readers,

_Septemque una sibi muro circumdedit arces_.

Had we found this passage in any other of the Latin poets, we should have been apt to question the judgment of the writer; and to suspect, that, in attempting to rise upon himself, he had fallen, unawares, into an evident anti-climax. But the correct elegance of Virgil’s manner, and his singular talent in working up an image, by just degrees, to the precise point of perfection, may satisfy us, that he had his reason for going on, where we might expect him to stop; which reason can be no other, than that the _seven hills_ were necessary to complete his description of the imperial city[195]. To an ancient Roman, the circumstance of its _situation_ was, of all others, the most august and characteristic; and Rome itself was not Rome, till it was contemplated under this idea.

There was ground enough, then, for saying, “that the _name_ of Rome could not have pointed out the city _more plainly_.” But I go farther, and take upon me to assert, That the _periphrasis_ is even more precise, and less equivocal, than the _proper name_ would have been, if inserted in the prophecy. For _Rome_, so called, might have stood, like Sodom, or Babylon, simply for an idolatrous City. But the city, _seated on seven hills_, and _reigning over the earth_, is the city of Rome itself, and excludes, by the peculiarity of these attributes, any other application.

Nor is it any objection to the remark, now made, that this city, whatever it be, is described by _another_ circumstance, not peculiar to Rome, indeed scarce applicable to it, I mean that of its being _seated on many waters_[196]. For these _waters_ are not given as a mark of Rome’s _natural_, but _political_ situation: as the prophetic style might lead one to expect, if the sacred writer had not taken care to prevent all mistake by assuring us, in so many words, That _the waters, where the whore sitteth, are_ PEOPLES, AND MULTITUDES, AND NATIONS, AND TONGUES[197].

If it be, further, said, “That the _seven hills_ may, likewise, admit a similar construction from the frequent use of _hills_, as emblems of _power_, in hieroglyphic writing, and therefore in prophetic description,” the remark is very just: but then, unluckily, there is no such explanation of the _seven hills_, as we have of the _waters_, from the prophet himself; while yet it could not escape him, that such explanation was more than commonly necessary in this case, to prevent the reader from applying the _seven hills_ to the best-known city in the world, then subsisting in all its glory, and universally acknowledged by this distinctive character of its situation.

Should it, lastly, be alledged, “That the explanation is subjoined to the figure, for that the prophet adds immediately in the following verse—_and there are seven kings_—meaning, that the _seven hills_, just mentioned, were to be taken as emblems only of _seven kings_,” I reply, that the _seven hills_, in the figurative sense of the term, _hills_, naturally suggested, and elegantly introduce, the _seven kings_; but that the _former_, nevertheless, are clearly to be distinguished from the _latter_. For it is not said—_and the seven hills are seven kings_—as it was before said—_the seven heads are seven hills_—but—AND _there are seven kings_—plainly advancing a step further in the prophecy, and pointing out a new characteristic distinction of the seven-hilled city, arising from the different forms of Government, through which it had passed.

The truth is (as Mr. Mede well observes[198]) _the seven heads of the beast_, are a DOUBLE TYPE: _first_, they signify the _seven hills_, on which the city is placed; and, _then_, the _seven kings_, or governments, to which it had been subject; but still _on_ those seven hills, for which reason the same type is made to signify both: But, if the type had been designed to carry a _single_ sense, and _kings_ had been that sense, as explicatory of _hills_, it had been very preposterous to give the _interpretation_ of the type, and then to _interpret_ the interpretation, unless the expression had been so guarded as to convey this purpose in the most distinct manner. As it is now put, there are manifestly TWO SENSES, and ONE TYPE[199].

On the whole, there can be no doubt concerning _the great city on seven hills_. It can be no other, than the city of Rome itself: In other words, the Antichristian, is a _Roman Power_.

Still, this Roman power, for any thing that hath hitherto appeared, may be a _Pagan_ and _Civil_ power. But

III. The prophecies seem very clearly to point it out to us, _as an_ ECCLESIASTICAL and, in name and pretence, at least, _a_ CHRISTIAN _power_.

To begin again with the prophet, Daniel. He tells us, that the Horn which shall _arise after_, and from _among_, the ten horns, that is, the Antichristian kingdom, as before explained, shall be DIVERSE from the ten kingdoms, out of which it shall arise[200]. “But a kingdom may be _diverse_ from other kingdoms, in various respects.” Without doubt. And, therefore, we cannot certainly conclude from this single text, that the _diversity_, mentioned, will consist in its being a spiritual kingdom. Yet, if ye reflect that this _diversity_ is given, as the characteristic mark of the Antichristian kingdom; that, although there may be other and smaller differences between kingdoms, the greatest and most signal is that which subsists between a temporal and spiritual power; nay, that Government, as such, is, and can only be, of two sorts, civil and spiritual, as corresponding to the two constituent parts of _man_, (the subject of all government in this world,) the Soul and the Body: Taking, I say, these considerations along with you, ye cannot esteem it a very harsh and violent interpretation, if, without looking any farther, we incline to think that this _diversity_ of regimen, so emphatically pointed out, respects that great and essential difference in human government, _only_. At least, it will be admitted, that, if, from other and more express testimonies, the government of Antichrist appear to be a spiritual government, we shall, then, be authorized to put such a construction on Daniel’s prophecy, as will reach the full force and import of his expression. Such a kingdom must be allowed to be eminently _diverse_ from secular kingdoms. So that the harmony between the prophets on this subject will be clear and striking.

Now, such a testimony we seem to find in the Apostle, St. Paul; who, prophesying of _the man of Sin_, or Antichrist, to be revealed in the latter days, makes it a distinguishing part of his character, _That he_ SITTETH IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD[201]. Consider the force of these words. A power, _seated in the temple of God_, can be nothing but a power suitable to that place, or a _spiritual_ power: just as a power, _seated in the throne of Cæsar_, could only be interpreted of a _civil_ power.

Nor say, because the context runs thus—“that he, AS GOD, sitteth in the temple of God, SHEWING himself that he IS GOD—that therefore it only means his claiming _divine honours_: a degree of blasphemy, very applicable to a _civil_ power.” This objection has clearly no force: because his _sitting in the temple of God_ was the very _means_ (if we rightly apply this prophecy) by which the man of sin rose to that abominable pre-eminence. It was by virtue of his _spiritual_, that he assumed a _divine_ character. So that the phrase—_as God_—and that other—_shewing himself that he is God_—sets before us, indeed, the extravagant height to which the man of sin aspired, and to which he ascended; but, no way invalidates the conclusion from his sitting in the temple of God—that he was a _spiritual power_. Rather, we see the propriety of this conclusion: because the text, thus understood, suggests the _way_ in which the man of sin accomplished his blasphemous purpose: His _success_ arose, from his _station_ in the temple. On the other hand, a power _sitting in the throne of Cæsar_, might sit there _as God_, and might _shew himself that he was God_ (as many of the Roman Emperors did:) So that the clause—_sitting in the temple of God_—has evidently no peculiar fitness, as applied to the usurpation of divine honours by a _civil tyrant_; whereas we see it has that fitness, when applied to a _spiritual_ tyrant. The context therefore proves nothing against the interpretation, here proposed and defended.

But, what is this _temple of God_? The temple at Jerusalem, it will be said; the only temple, so called, then subsisting in the world[202]. Admit this to be the literal sense of the words. Yet ye remember so much of what hath been said concerning the prophetic style, as not to think it strange, that the literal sense should involve in it another, a _mystical_ meaning. And this, without any uncertainty whatsoever. For so, the term, _Jew_, means a _Christian_; the term, _David_, means _Christ_; the _incense_ of the temple-service, means the _prayers_ of Christians; plainly and confessedly so, in numberless instances. Agreeably to this analogical use of Jewish terms, in the style of the prophets, _the temple of God_, nay _the temple of Jerusalem_[203] (if that had been the expression) must, in all reason, be interpreted of the _Christian church_, and could not, in the prophetic language, be interpreted otherwise. When, therefore, Antichrist is said to _sit in the temple of God_, it is the same thing as if it had been said of him, _That he sitteth_, or ruleth, _in the church of Christ_. Now, substitute these words—_the church of Christ_—in the room of those other words—_the temple of God_; and see, if St. Paul, supposing his purpose had been to express a spiritual power in opposition to a civil; see, I say, if St. Paul could have conveyed that purpose more plainly.

Still, we have another, and, if possible, a more decisive testimony in the _Revelations_. For, among the different views, which St. John gives us of Antichrist, in so many distinct visions, one is set before us in the following manner—_And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a Dragon_[204]. Now, if we had known nothing more of these symbols, than what the obvious qualities of the animals themselves suggested to us, we could only have inferred, that this ruling power (for that is the idea conveyed by the term, _Beast_) would put on the appearance of a gentle and pacific administration: I say, the _appearance_; for what its _real_ character was to be, is clearly enough expressed in what follows, that this lamb-like beast _spake as a Dragon_. But, when we further reflect, that _horns_, in the prophetic style, are the emblems of _power_, and that a _Lamb_ is the peculiar, the _appropriated_ symbol of Christ, _the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world_[205], and is constantly so employed throughout this whole prophecy of the Revelations, we must, of necessity, conclude that _a beast with the horns of a lamb_ can only be a state or person, pretending to such powers, as Christ exercised, and his Religion authoriseth; that is, powers, _not of this world_, but purely spiritual.

The other symbol of a _Dragon_, confirms this conclusion. For a _Dragon_, in the prophecies, is the known symbol of the old Roman Government in its pagan, persecuting state. When, therefore, it is said that the beast _spake as a Dragon_, the meaning is, That Antichrist should assume the highest tone of civil authority in promoting his tyrannous purposes, though he cloked his fierce pretensions under the meek semblance of a spiritual character. Taken together, these two symbols speak as plainly, as symbolic terms can speak, That Antichrist was to be a _religious person_, acting in the spirit of a _secular tyrant_. So exactly is he characterised by the poet Mantuan, addressing himself to one of the Popes—

_Ense_ potens _gemino_, cujus vestigia adorant
Cæsar et aurato vestiti murice reges.

On the whole, I leave it to be considered, whether, when the prophecies pronounce of Antichrist, that he should be, a power _diverse_ from all others—that he should _sit in the temple of God_—and that he should have _the horns of a lamb_—I leave it, I say, to your consideration, whether it be not plain that this extraordinary power, a Roman power, and residing at Rome, was to be a _Christian and Ecclesiastical_, and not a _Pagan and Civil_ power.

IV. Another obvious character of Antichrist, or rather, _complication_ of characters, is that triple brand, impressed upon him, of a _tyrannical, intolerant, and idolatrous_, power.

The prophets hold him up to us, as _reigning_, or exercising an oppressive and supereminent dominion, _over the kings of the earth_, that is, of the Western empire[206]; as _making war with the lamb, and the saints who receive not his mark in their foreheads_[207], that is, persecuting good and conscientious Christians, who refuse to wear the badge of Antichrist, and to serve under him; and, as another _Babylon, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth_[208], that is, as polluted himself with the grossest idolatry, and as corrupting the nations with the same prophane worship.

But these marks, it will be said, have been found upon so many powers, which have appeared in the world, that they cannot be given as the _distinctive_ marks of _one_, that is, of the Papal Power: Nay, the Bishop of Meaux goes further, and attempts to shew, by a very refined argument, that the very _terms_ of _whoredom_ and _fornication_, in which the _last_ of these marks, I mean, IDOLATRY, is set forth by the prophet in the _book of Revelations_, make it impossible for us to apply that mark to Rome Christian.

Let us see, then, _first_, what force there is in the criticism of this learned Prelate.

That _whoredom_, or _fornication_, in the language of scripture, means _idolatry_, is agreed on all hands, and cannot be disputed: Whether the figurative use of this term arose from observing, how constantly that pollution attended idolatrous worship; or how fitly a communication with false gods may be compared with that unlawful commerce: Whatever be the ground of the analogy, it is clear to a demonstration that _whoredom_ is but another name for _idolatry_, which, under this idea, is very frequently charged upon the Jews by the ancient prophets.

Sometimes, however, (without doubt, to aggravate the charge) the idolatry of the Jews is considered in the light of _adultery_, that is, of infidelity to the God of Israel; to whom, as to her proper Lord and _Husband_, the Jewish nation had, by express stipulation, and in the most solemn manner, contracted herself.

But, notwithstanding this promiscuous application of the terms, _fornication_, and _adultery_, to the idolatry of the Jews in the ancient prophecies, it hath been remarked by the Bishop of Meaux, “That Babylon, or Rome, in the Revelations, is constantly and uniformly spoken of, as a _whore_, and not as an _adulteress_: whence he concludes, that this charge is brought against Pagan Rome only, and not Christian Rome. For, why, he asks, is so much care taken not to impute _adultery_ to idolatrous Rome, if it had been a Christian city? when its polluting itself with this crime, contrary to the most express engagements, which Christians take upon themselves, of fidelity to the only true God, might justly deserve, and, in propriety, may seem to require, this opprobrious charge, rather than that other lighter one of _fornication_; whereas, if Pagan Rome be here meant, its idolatry could only be set forth under the idea of _fornication_, and not of _adultery_[209].”

Now, although, as I observed, the idolatrous Jews are frequently treated by their prophets, as _fornicators_, as well as _adulterers_, nay, are much more frequently[210] represented under the _former_ idea, than the _latter_; and although it be therefore true, that _fornication_ is not necessarily, and exclusively, to be understood of Pagan idolatry, but may well be applied to Christian idolaters, as it was to the Jewish; yet the force of the learned objector’s argument will not be obviated by this observation only. For the stress of it lies in this, “That the idolatry of Rome in the Revelations is _every where_, that is, purposely, termed _fornication_ (to insinuate to us, that the charge is directed against a Pagan City, and not a Christian Church), and _no where_, that is, purposely again, called _adultery_.”

The objection is extremely ingenious; and, so far as I know, hath been, hitherto, unanswered. Yet, if any good reason can be assigned why the prophet should thus studiously prefer the term, _fornication_, to that of _adultery_, in describing the idolatry of Christian Rome, notwithstanding those terms be used indifferently by the Jewish prophets, when they reprove the idolatry of their own countrymen, the Bishop of Meaux would himself acknowledge, that his objection falls to the ground.

Now such a reason offers itself to us in the EMBLEM, under which St. John chuses to represent his idolatrous society. This emblem is, _Babylon_; a Pagan idolatrous city; to which the idea of _fornication_ may be colourably, and hath, in fact, been, applied[211], in order to express the transgression of the law of nature, in its idolatrous worship: But to such a city, _adultery_, could in no proper sense, be applied; because, it had never entered into any close engagement, or _marriage-contract_, as it were, with the God of heaven.

This being admitted, we see the reason, why Rome Christian is taxed as a _whore_ simply, and not as an adulteress. For what had been improperly said of the _type_, cannot, on the principles of decorum, be transferred to the _anti-type_. If Babylon be only a _harlot_, she is a harlot still, and nothing more, when she stands for Rome, whether Pagan, or Christian. The concinnity of the figure, and the just correspondence of the thing signified to the sign, demands the observance of this rule; which cannot be violated without manifest absurdity and confusion.

“But why then, it is asked, was such an emblem employed? Why was not Jerusalem, or Samaria (of which _adultery_ might be predicated) rather chosen, than Babylon, for the type, or representation of _idolatrous Christian Rome_?”

The reason, again, is obvious. It was, because Babylon was the _first_ of all idolatrous cities; and the _fittest_[212] to emblematize the enormous guilt, or to set in full light the extensive influence, of idolatrous Rome. For each, in its turn, was _the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth_; the _former_ corrupting the _heathen_ world with her fornication, and the latter, the _Christian_.

When therefore for this, or the like reason, Babylon was made the emblem of Christian Rome, the prophet was obliged to retain the idea of fornication, only, and not to interpose that of adultery, through the whole tenour of his application.

It may, further, be worth observing, that _pagan_ idolatry is, for the most part, exposed by the ancient prophets under the notion of LYES, or LYING VANITIES[213]; and very rarely, I think in no more than one or two short passages, under that of _fornication_. For vague lust was so generally practised in the heathen world, and the law of nature, condemning that vice, so little known, or respected by it, that the metaphor would not have conveyed to a Pagan idolater the atrocious nature of his crime. The Mosaic Law, on the other hand, interdicting fornication in the severest terms, and requiring that _there should be no whore of the daughters of Israel_[214], the guilt of idolatry was very forcibly, as well as naturally, represented to a Jew, under that idea.

Accordingly, we find, that the prophets every where, and in whole pages, employ this figure, when they address themselves to Jewish idolaters. Whence it may seem, that, although there be sufficient authorities to justify the prophet St. John in considering his emblematic Babylon under the idea of a _harlot_, yet he would not have prosecuted even this inferior charge of _fornication_ so far as he has done, and in so many parts of his prophecy, if his purpose had not been to apply it to a _believing_, and not a Pagan city. If the mystical Babylon be _Christian_ Rome, we see the force and propriety of this representation; which had clearly been less apt, if Pagan Rome, according to the Bishop of Meaux, had been intended by the prophet.

We see then, in both ways, why Rome is not an _adulteress_ in the Revelations; and why she is so emphatically, a _harlot_. The type employed forbad the _former_ charge, though the anti-type be _Rome Christian_: The _latter_ charge had not been so much laboured, if the anti-type had been _Rome Pagan_.

Thus, the edge of this acute objection is entirely taken off, and the execution, it was to make on the Protestant system, prevented.