Chapter VII: Part 7

To return, now, to the consideration of our _three_ marks. These marks, it is said, agree to so many other powers, besides that of the Papacy, that they cannot be made the peculiar, distinctive characters of Christian Rome. And, without doubt, considered merely in themselves, they cannot. But, having already understood that the power, thus stigmatized, is a power seated in the _seven-hilled_ city, and that too, an _ecclesiastical_ power, one sees clearly that, if the prophecies have hitherto received their accomplishment in any degree, these marks can only be sought in Papal Rome, and must be the proper, exclusive characters of that power. I say, _one sees this_; but, it must be owned, not without amazement, That a species of government, calling itself Christian, and professing to model itself on the example of the _Lamb_, on the pure and simple principles of the Gospel, should yet be all over stained with those specific vices, which Christianity most abhors—the utmost pride of secular domination—the most relentless zeal against the rights of conscience—and, what is still more incredible, the most blasphemous idolatry. The accumulated infamy of these crimes struck the prophet, St. John, so forcibly, that, on the sight of this portentous monster, exhibited to him in the vision, _he wondered_, as himself expresses it, _with great admiration_[215].

But, strange as this vision appeared to the sacred _prophet_, the Papal history is found to realize all the wonders of it: And, backward as we may be to interpret this vision of a church, professedly Christian, that church herself is so little scandalized at the imputation of these crimes, that she is ready to avow them all; the _two first_, directly and openly; and the _last_, when set in a certain light, and explained in her own manner. In short, she prides herself in the _extent of her sway_[216], and the _fire of her zeal_[217], and only quibbles with us about the meaning of the term, _idolatry_.

To cut the matter short, then, and to keep clear of those endless debates concerning the worship of _Images_, of the _Cross_, and of the _Host_ in the celebration of the Mass; debates, which a dextrous sophist may find means to carry on with a shew of argument, and with some degree of plausibility; To set aside, I say, all these topics, let it be observed, at once, That _idolatry_, in the scriptural sense of the word, is of _two sorts_, and consists either, 1. in giving the honour due to the one true God, as maker and governor of the world, to any other supposed, though subordinate god; Or, 2, in giving the honour due to Christ, as the sole mediator between God and Man, to any other supposed, though subordinate, mediator. The _former_, is the idolatry forbidden by the Jewish law, and by the law of Nature: The _latter_, is Christian idolatry, properly so called, and is the abomination, prohibited and condemned, in so severe terms, by the law of the Gospel.

Now, whether the _former_ species of idolatry be chargeable on the church of Rome or not; and whether the _crime_ of that species, may not be incurred by honouring the true object of worship, through the medium of some sensible image: Whatever, I say, be determined on these two points (which, for the present, shall be set aside) the _other_ species of idolatry is, without all doubt, chargeable on any Christian church that shall adopt or acknowledge, in its religious addresses, another mediator, besides Christ Jesus.

But the church of Rome (I do not say, in the private writings of her divines, but) in the solemn forms of her ritual, _publicly professes_, and, by her canons and councils, _authoritatively enjoyns_, the worship of saints and angels, under the idea of mediators and intercessors: not indeed in exclusion of Christ, as _one_, or, if you will, as _chief_ mediator, but in manifest defiance of his claim to be, the _sole_ mediator. This charge is truly and justly brought against that Church, as it now stands, and hath stood, for many ages; and cannot, by any subterfuge whatsoever, be evaded[218]. And therefore, to the other characters of _Pride_ and _Intolerance_, which she takes to herself with much complacency, she must, now, be content (whether she will or no) to have that of DÆMON-WORSHIP, or ANTICHRISTIAN IDOLATRY, fastened upon her.

Nor let the followers of that communion think to elude this charge, by saying, _That they only request the saints, as we commonly do any good man, to pray for them_[219]. False and disingenuous! _False_; because their breviaries and litanies shew, that they supplicate the saints to befriend them by their own inherent power, or to intercede for them to the throne of God by virtue of their own personal merits[220], in blasphemous derogation to the all-atoning and incommunicable intercession of Jesus. _Disingenuous_, too; because they know very well, that the question is concerning unseen and heavenly mediators only, not men like ourselves, such as we live and converse with on earth; whom we only admonish of their duty, and to whom we only do ours, when we call upon them to exert an act of piety and common charity in praying for their fellow-christians. Our meaning is but that which the Apostle well expresses, when he would have us _consider one another, to provoke unto love and to good works_[221]; and not at all to supplicate our Christian brethren as powerful intercessors, in whose meritorious virtues we confide, and to whom, as possessing a proper interest in the Almighty, by the worth of their own persons, we commit our dearest concerns, The forgiveness of our sins, and the salvation of our souls.

“But this, it will be said, is a very defective, and even unfair, account of the matter. We do more than admonish our brethren of their duty, when we sollicit their prayers for us. We invite them directly, and formally, to _intercede_ for us to the throne of Grace. We are allowed, nay encouraged, to lay a stress on their intercession; and, what is more, we are given to understand that such intercession, especially if it be made by good men, will have weight and influence in Heaven. What else is the meaning of the Apostle, when he assures us, _That the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much_. James v. 16.? And, if the prayer of _a righteous man_, much more the prayer of glorified saints and angels.”

I have put the argument, I think, in all its force, and (because the advocates of the papal cause affect to think it unanswerable) shall examine it, with care.

“We apply to good Christians, or to those we esteem such, to intercede for us by their prayers to Heaven.” We do so; and are encouraged in this application, by the _example_, and by the _directions_ of the Apostles. For I shall not take advantage of what some have conceived to be the meaning of St. James, in the place alledged, where he attributes so much to the prayer of, a righteous man, That the prayer, there spoken of, is _the prayer of faith_, or a spiritual gift miraculously conferred on the first teachers of the Gospel, and confined to their ministry: I will not, I say, take advantage of this gloss; because, whatever foundation it may seem to have in the context of that epistle, I allow it to be clear from other places of the New Testament[222], That the duty of Christians is to pray, that is, to _intercede_, for each other.

But then I desire it may be observed,

1. What difference there is between desiring good men to pray for us, in the Gospel sense of that duty; and desiring Saints and Angels to pray for us, in the sense of the papal rituals. We request those prayers, only as they shall be offered up in the name, and through the merits, of the great, and properly speaking, sole intercessor; and we look for no effect from them, but on that condition. The Church of Rome addresses herself to Saints and Angels, as _intercessors_, by, what we may call, their own right, by virtue of their own inherent sanctity: Or, rather, she applies to them directly, as to _Saviours_, for their proper and immediate help, and expects it from the supposed privilege of their rank, or merits, independently of their _prayers_, or, at least, of the _manner_ in which those prayers shall be presented through the name of Jesus. The formal words of their Litanies shew, that such is their meaning.

But they will say, that this condition of interceding, or saving, through the merits of Christ, is implied, though not expressed. I reply then,

2. That, admitting it to be so, there is, yet, the widest difference between _praying_ to Saints and Angels to pray for us, though in the Gospel forms of intercession; and merely _requesting_ good men to pray for us, in those forms. The _latter_ address is made in a way remote from all appearance of idolatry, and free from the suspicion of it: The _former_, is preferred in the _place_, at the _time_, with the _posture_, in the _language_, in short, with all the circumstances and formalities of divine worship.

3. I observe, that, when we ask the prayers of men, we know that they hear our address to them: We cannot even suppose thus much of Saints and Angels, without ascribing to them the incommunicable attributes of the Almighty.

Still, it may be insisted, That prayers, whether offered up to God by men, or glorified spirits, are however to be considered in the light of _Intercessions_; and that therefore, so far as we combat the practice of saint-worship on that ground, Protestants, as well as Papists, when they employ the prayers of others, are guilty of idolatry.

This, in truth, is the hinge, on which the question turns: And, to shew the difference of the two cases, palpably and clearly, I say,

Fourthly, and lastly, That the Gospel, in permitting, or rather in commanding us to ask the prayers of each other, justifies this sort of intercession, and absolves it from the blame and guilt of idolatry. It gives a sanction to this mode of mediating with God by his Saints, on earth; and does not regard it as a practice that interferes with the mediatorial office of Jesus, in Heaven.

The same Gospel, on the contrary, (I inquire not, for what reasons) says not a word, from which we can infer, that any such address is directed, or permitted, to be made to Angels or Spirits. It even condemns all addresses of this kind, under the opprobrious name of unauthorized, or WILL-WORSHIP[223]. Though we be allowed, then, to have good men, in some sense, for our mediators or intercessors on earth, we are not allowed to have any mediator or intercessor in the tabernacle of heaven, but Jesus, the great high priest of Christians, only. This last sort of intercession, by Angels and glorified Saints, is against the spirit and letter of our religion. It is a practice, which, not being enjoined, is forbidden; which, being disallowed, is reprobated. In a word, It entrenches on the incommunicable honour and prerogatives of the great, the appointed, the sole Mediator in Heaven, seated at God’s right hand, _who ever liveth to make intercession for us_[224]. It sets up new mediators, without, and against his leave: It is, then, un-christian, and _idolatrous_.

Thus at length, I suppose, it appears indisputably, That we are neither unreasonable, nor uncharitable, in charging IDOLATRY, as well as the other two anti-christian vices of _pride_, and _intolerance_, to the account of papal Rome.

V. The last prophetic mark of Antichrist, which I shall have time to point out to you, and what perhaps you may esteem the most material of all, is, _The_ TIME _in which that power is said to make its appearance in the world_.

It hath been already observed[225], that the _chronology_ of the prophecies is, for the most part, not defined with that exactness, which we expect in historical compositions. It is commonly expressed in terms that may be interpreted with some latitude; or, when the date is more precisely delivered, we are still at a loss, in some respect or other, before the event, in what manner to form our calculation. However, the expression is not so loose and vague, but that we may clearly apprehend _about_ what time the predicted event will come to pass.

Thus, for instance, the season of Christ’s _coming into the world_ was fixed by such circumstances as these—that it should be before the total dissolution of the Jewish state—or while the second temple was yet standing: And, when it was determinately foretold to be after the expiration of _seventy weeks, from the going forth of the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem_, still, besides the prophetic and somewhat obscure sense of the word _weeks_, we cannot beforehand calculate exactly _when_ these weeks commence[226], or in what term they are to be accomplished. Yet, notwithstanding these uncertainties, the Jews saw very clearly, and, from them, the rest of the world conceived an expectation, that the person predicted was to appear in that age, or _about_ that time, in which he did appear, and which, from the tenour of the prophecies, they had computed would be the time of his appearance.

In like manner, the season of Antichrist’s appearance in the world is left to be collected from general intimations; and, when the duration of his tyranny is limited to _twelve hundred and sixty days_, besides that the expression, as before, is ænigmatical, we have no means of fixing the commencement of that period so precisely, but that some doubts may arise about it, till the accomplishment of the prophecy shall give light and certainty to the computation. Yet still, as in the former case, we have such _data_ to proceed upon in calculating the reign of Antichrist, as may let us see _about_ what time it was to be expected.

Thus much being premised, I have now only to remind you of what the prophets expressly declare concerning the rise of Antichrist. The eldest of these, the prophet Daniel, says it was to be in the time of the _fourth_ kingdom, that is, of the Roman; which, for the convenience of the prophetic calculations, is considered as subsisting, though in a new form, under the ten kings, among whom it was to be divided. He further tells us, that Antichrist was to arise from _among_, and _after_, the ten kings; that is, we are to look for him _then_, (and not before) when the Roman empire has undergone that change of government[227].

Next, St. Paul, it seems, had told the Thessalonians, what it was that, for a time, prevented the appearance of Antichrist: But that information hath not been transmitted to us. However, he says to them—_Ye know_ WHAT _with-holdeth that he might be revealed in his time_: and further adds, HE, _who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way_[228].

Now, by putting these passages together, and by comparing them with the predictions of Daniel, not we of these later times only, before whom _the man of sin_ is supposed to be evidently displayed, but the early fathers of the church, long before the events happened to which these prophetic notices could be applied, clearly saw, or at least generally conjectured, that the impediment, here mentioned, was the then subsisting power of the Cæsarean government; which, they said, was first to be taken away, and then Antichrist would be revealed[229].

Lastly, the Apostle St. John not only confirms the prophecies of Daniel, that Antichrist should arise out of the ten kings, who were to have the western empire shared out among them, but adds this remarkable circumstance, That he should RIDE the ten kings[230]; which implies, that he should _co-exist_ with them: And it further appears, that he was to receive his whole power from them, and was finally to be destroyed by them.

Now, turn to the history of the _fourth_ kingdom, and see how it corresponds to these prophecies. Observe, when the western empire under its Cæsarean head, was taken away; how it was, afterwards, dismembered by the northern nations; by what degrees it fell at length, into _ten_, that is, _many_ distinct, independent kingdoms; at what time this partition was made, or rather fully settled and completed. From this time, and not before, you are to look for Antichrist, now gradually rearing himself up among the ten kings; and at length, in a condition, by the power, which they gave to him, to _ride_, that is, to direct and govern them. From this time, again, compute the 1260 years, the predicted period of his government; and, keeping your eye all along on the ecclesiastical and civil state of our western world (the predicted theatre of all these transactions) see, if you can help concluding, I do not say at what precise time, but _about_ what time, Antichrist appeared; see, if the _commencement_ of his reign be not so far determined as that you may be certain of its being long since past; and see, if very much, at least, of that allotted _period_, through which his dominion was to continue, according to the prophecies, be not, by the evident attestation of history, now run out.

To DRAW, then, what hath been said on the several marks of Antichrist, to a point. Consider, within _what part_ of the world, he was to appear; in _what seat_ or throne, he was to be established; of _what kind_, his sovereignty was to be; with _what attributes_, he was to be invested; in _what season_, or _about what time_, and for _how long a time_, he was to reign and prosper: Consider these FIVE obvious characters of Antichrist, which the prophets have distinctly set forth, and which, from them, I have successively held up to you: And, then, compare them with the correspondent characters, which you find inscribed, by the pen of authentic history, on a certain power, sprung up in the West; seated in the city of Rome; calling himself the Vicar of Christ; yet _full of names of blasphemy_, that is, stigmatized with those crimes, which Christianity, as such, holds most opprobrious, the crimes of tyrannic dominion, of persecution, and even Idolatry; and lastly, now subsisting in the world, though with evident symptoms of decay, after a long reign, whose rise and progress can be traced, and whose duration, hitherto, is uncontradicted by any prophecy: Put, I say, all these correspondent marks together, and see if they do not furnish, if not an absolute demonstration, yet a high degree of probability, that apostate papal Rome is the very Antichrist foretold.

At least, you will admit that these correspondencies are signal enough to merit your attention, and even to justify your pains in looking further into so curious and interesting a subject. Ye will say to yourselves, That the prophecies concerning Antichrist deserve at least to be considered with care, since in so many striking particulars, they appear, on the face of them, to have been completed.

This _conclusion_, it is presumed, is a reasonable one: And the end of this discourse will be answered, if ye are, at length, prevailed upon to _draw_ this conclusion.

SERMON XII.

USES OF THIS INQUIRY INTO THE PROPHECIES.

REV. xxii. 7.

_Behold, I come quickly: Blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book._

Before we engage in a work of time and difficulty, we naturally ask, “CUI BONO, to what considerable end and purpose, are our labours to be referred?”

Although it may, then, be presumed, that enough hath been said on the prophecies to excite a reasonable desire of looking further into them, and even to produce a general persuasion, that they have been, or may be, understood; yet, it may quicken your attention to this argument, and support your industry in the prosecution of it, to set before you the USES, which may result from a full and final conviction (if such should be the issue of your inquiries), That these prophecies are not intelligible only, but have, in many instances, been rightly applied, and clearly fulfilled.

These USES are very many. I shall collect, only, _two or three_ of the more important, for your consideration.

Though every period of prophecy be instructive, that which takes in the great events and revolutions, which have come to pass in the _Christian Church_, is, for obvious reasons, more especially interesting to us, who live in these latter ages of the world.

Of the numerous predictions, contained in either Testament, which, it is presumed, respect these events, the most considerable by far, because the most minute and circumstantial, are those of St. John in the _Revelations_; which treat professedly of such things as were to befall _the servants of Jesus_[231], from the prophet’s own days, down to that awful period, when all the mysterious councils of God, in regard to the Christian dispensation, shall be finally shut up in the day of judgment. To these predictions, then, a more particular attention is due, the rather because they have been fulfilling from the time of their delivery—_behold, I come quickly_—and, above all, because a _blessing_ is pronounced on those, who keep, that is, who observe, who study and contemplate, _the sayings of this book_.

Assuredly, then, this study will be rewarded with signal benefits. And one sees immediately:

I. In the first place, that no small benefit must arise to those, who admit the completion of these prophecies, so far, I mean, as the tenour of the book makes it probable that they have been completed, _from the awful sense, which this conviction must needs give them of the Christian dispensation itself_.

That this dispensation, ushered in by so long a train of prophecies, should still be attended by others, through all the stages and periods of it; that secular empires should rise and fall, unnoticed, as it were, by the Spirit of God, while the kingdom of his Son is so peculiarly distinguished, and its whole history, in a manner, anticipated, by the most express predictions: that Jesus should be, as he says of himself, _the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end_[232], of all God’s religious dispensations to mankind: that his _first coming_, or personal appearance in the flesh, should be signified from the foundation of the world, and from time to time more explicitly declared in a variety of successive prophecies, till the great event, at length, fulfilled them all: and that, together with this event (the foundation of others, still more illustrious) his _second coming_, in the future and gradual manifestations of his power (for they were to be _gradual_) should be distinctly marked out, and duly accomplished, in the fortunes of the Christian church, or of that kingdom, which he came to erect in the world; while this subject, and no other, engaged the ultimate attention of all the prophets: There is, I say, in this scheme of things, something so astonishingly vast, something so much above and beyond the attention that was ever known to be paid to any other person or thing in the compass of universal history, as must strike an awe into the hearts of all men, who consider Christianity in this point of view; and must compel the most negligent to confess, or suspect at least, That _such_ a dispensation is a matter of no light moment, but, indeed, the most important in the eyes of Providence, and the most interesting to mankind, that can be conceived, or expressed.

If, then, there be reason, to _admit_ the completion of such prophecies, respecting such a subject, in any considerable number of instances, within that space of time which is already elapsed; and, therefore, to _expect_ that the remaining prophecies will, in like manner, be fulfilled, The conclusion is, that the dispensation of God through Christ is of the last consequence to the inhabitants of this world: And the obvious _use_ of this conclusion will be, that it further obliges all serious men who have thus far profited by a study of the sacred oracles, to put that salutary question to themselves—_How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation[233]?_

Connected with _this_ use of prophecy,

II. A _second_ is, That it sets before us, not the importance only, but the _truth_ of Christianity, in the strongest light.

So many illustrious events falling in, one after another, just as the word of prophecy foretold they should, must afford the most convincing proof, That our Religion is, as it claims to be, of divine institution: a _proof_, the more convincing, because it is continually growing upon us; and, the farther we are removed from the source of our religion, the clearer is the evidence of its truth. Other proofs are supposed to be, and, in some degree, perhaps, are, weakened by a length of time. But this, from prophecy, as if to make amends for their defects, hath the peculiar privilege of strengthening by age itself: till hereafter, as we presume, the accumulated force of so much evidence shall overpower all the scruples of infidelity; and bring about, at length, that general conversion both of Jew and Gentile, which the sacred oracles have so expressly foretold.

In both these ways, then, by impressing on the mind the most affecting sense of Christianity; that is, by giving us, _first_, the most _awful view of its pretensions_, and _then_, by producing the _firmest conviction of its truth_, the word of prophecy hath an evident tendency, in proportion as we see its accomplishment, to promote the great ends, for which it was given, till _the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord_, and _all the inhabitants of the world shall learn righteousness_[234].

These uses are general, and concern _all_ men: The

III. _Next_, I shall mention, is more especially addressed to _thinking_ and inquisitive men.

When the view of things, exhibited under the two preceding articles, has raised our admiration, to the utmost, of the divine councils in contriving, preparing, and at length executing so vast a scheme, as that of Christianity, for the benefit of mankind; we are led to expect that the _effect_ will correspond to the _means_ employed, and that a striking change will, at length, be brought about in the condition of the moral world.

But, in surveying the history of this new religion, the theme of so many prophecies, and the great, the favourite object, if I may so speak, of divine Providence, “some are not a little scandalized to observe that nothing hath come to pass in any degree equivalent to such an expence of forethought and contrivance; that, for a season, indeed, virtue and piety seemed to triumph, in the exemplary lives of the first converts to this religion, and in the overthrow of Pagan idolatry; but that this golden age was soon over; and that, now, for more than fourteen hundred years, the passions of men have kept their usual train, or rather have expatiated with more licence and fury in the Christian world, than in the Pagan; that _idolatry_, in all its forms, has revived in the bosom of Christianity; and, as to _private morals_, that this Religion has even made men worse than it found them, or, at best, of corrupt sensualists, has only made them intolerant and vindictive bigots; that, in a word, the _kingdom of heaven_, as it is called, has, hitherto, neither served to the glory of God, nor to the good of mankind; at least, to neither of these ends, in the _degree_, that might have been expected from such high pretensions.”

The colouring of this picture, we will say, is too strong: but the outline, at least, is fairly given. The corruptions of the Christian world have been notorious and great; and though they are indeed the corruptions of men calling themselves Christians, and not the vices of Christianity, yet he who the most dispassionately contemplates so sad a scene, can hardly reconcile appearances to what must have been his natural expectations.

Here, then, the prophecies of this book, I mean, of the Apocalypse, come in to our relief. This book contains a detailed account of what would befall mankind under this last and so much magnified dispensation. It foretells all that history has recorded. It sets before us the corrupt state of the Christian world in almost as strong a light, as that in which our indignant speculatist himself has placed it. But it, likewise, opens better things to our view. It shews, that the _end_ of this dispensation is to promote virtue and happiness; and that this end shall finally, but through many and long obstructions, be accomplished. It represents the cause of righteousness, as still maintaining itself in all the conflict, to which it is exposed; as gradually gaining ground, and prevailing, through the secret aid of divine Providence, over all opposition, till it obtains a firm and permanent establishment; till _the Saints reign_ (not in a fanatical, but in the sober and evangelical sense of that word, _reign_) _in the earth_[235]; till _the Lord God omnipotent reigneth_[236].

So far, then, as these prophecies appear to have been completed, they reconcile us to that disordered scene, which hath hitherto been presented to us; and give repose to the anxious mind, in the assured hope of better things to come. The worst, that has _happened_, was foreseen; and the best, that we _conceive_, will hereafter come to pass. Thus, the reasonable expectations of men are answered, and the honour of God’s government abundantly vindicated.

IV. The _last_ use, I shall suggest to you, is that which immediately results from the study of the Apocalyptic prophecies _concerning Antichrist_; I mean, _the support that is hereby given to Protestantism against all the cavils and pretensions of its adversaries_.

For, if these prophecies are rightly applied to Papal Rome, and have, in part, been signally accomplished in the history of that church, it is beyond all doubt, that our communion with it is dangerous; nay, that our separation from it is a matter of strict duty. _Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues_[237]—are plain and decisive words, and, if allowed to be spoken of that church, bring the controversy between the Protestant and Papal Christians to a short issue.

I know, the advocates of Rome pretend, that, not a sense of duty, but a _spirit of revenge_ operates in the minds of Protestants, when they affect to lay so great a stress on the Apocalyptic prophecies. “_Reward her, even as she rewarded you_[238]”—is, they say, another of their favourite texts, by which they take themselves to be as much obliged, as by that which they so commonly alledge for quitting her communion. It is not, therefore, to cover themselves from the imputation of schism, but to authorize the vengeance, they meditate against us, that we are stunned with the cry of Antichrist and Babylon[239].”

To this charge, I can only reply, That, if any Protestant writers have put that sense on the words—_reward her, as she rewarded you_—they must answer for their own temerity and indiscretion. They, who understand themselves, and the language of prophecy, disclaim the odious imputation. They say, That they neither admit the lawfulness of persecution in any case, on the account of religion, nor have the least thought of instigating the Christian world to any sanguinary attempts against the Papacy. What the _event_ may be in the councils of Providence, is another consideration: But they neither avow, nor approve those principles, which tend to produce it. They, further, insist, That the two passages under consideration, though, both of them, expressed in the _imperative_ form, require a very different construction: That the language of prophecy _seems_ very often to authorise what it only foretells; and to command that which it barely permits: that, therefore, the sense of such passages is to be determined by the circumstances of the case; that, where obedience is lawful, there the _preceptive_ form may be admitted; but, where it is not, there nothing more is intended than the certainty of the _event_: That this distinction is to be made in the present case; for that Christianity doth not allow vindictive retaliations, or _holy wars_, for the sake of religion, and that offensive arms taken up in the cause of God (how confidently soever some have justified their zeal by the authority of the Jewish Law, ill-applied) are abominable and _antichristian_: Whence we rightly conclude, that—_reward her, as she rewarded you_—are words not to be taken injunctively; while those other words—_come out of her, my people_—expressing nothing but what it was previously our duty to do, are very clearly to be so taken.

Lastly, We say, that the context in the two places alledged, justifies this distinction. _Come out of her, my people._ Why? _That ye be not partakers, of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues._ The reason is just, and satisfactory. _Reward her._ Why? No reason is assigned, or could be assigned consistently with the spirit of the Christian religion: It only follows, _as she has rewarded you_—words, which express only the _measure_, and the _equitable grounds_ of the allotted punishment, not the _duty_ of Christians to inflict it.

I return, then, from the confutation of this cavil (the most plausible, however, as well as invidious, which the wit of Rome has started on this subject) to the conclusion, before laid down, That the completion of the Apocalyptic prophecies in the Papal apostasy, if seen and confessed, affords an unanswerable defence and vindication of the Protestant churches.

This conclusion, that THE POPE IS ANTICHRIST, and that other, that THE SCRIPTURE IS THE SOLE RULE OF CHRISTIAN FAITH, were the _two_ great principles, on which the Reformation was originally founded. How the _first_ of these principles came to be DISGRACED _among ourselves_, I have shewn in another discourse[240]. It may now be worth while to observe, in one word, through what fatal mismanagement the _latter_ principle was even _generally_ DISAVOWED and DESERTED.

When the Reformers had thrown off all respect for the Papal chair, and were for regulating the faith of Christians by the sacred scriptures, it still remained a question, _On what grounds, those scriptures should be interpreted_. The voice of the church, speaking by her schoolmen, and modern doctors, was universally, and without much ceremony, rejected. But the Fathers of the primitive church were still in great repute among Protestants themselves; who dreaded nothing so much as the imputation of novelty, which they saw would be fastened on their opinions, and who, besides, thought it too presuming to trust entirely to the dictates of what was called _the private spirit_. The church of Rome availed herself with dexterity, of this prejudice, and of the distress to which the Protestant party was reduced by it. The authority of these ancient and venerable interpreters was sounded high by the Catholic writers; and the clamour was so great and so popular, that the Protestants knew not how, consistently with their own principles, or even in mere decency, to decline the appeal which was thus confidently made to that tribunal. The Reformers, too, piqued themselves on their superior skill in ancient literature; and were ashamed to have it thought that their adversaries could have any advantage against them in a dispute, which was to be carried on in that quarter. Other considerations had, perhaps, their weight with particular churches: But, for these reasons, chiefly, all of them forwardly closed in with the proposal of trying their cause at the bar of the ancient church: And, thus, shifting their ground, maintained henceforth, not that the scriptures were the sole rule of faith, but the scriptures, _as interpreted by the primitive fathers_.

When the state of the question was thus changed, it was easy to see what would be the issue of so much indiscretion. The dispute was not only carried on in a dark and remote scene, into which the people could not follow their learned champions; but was rendered infinitely tedious, and, indeed, interminable. For those early writings, now to be considered as of the highest authority, were voluminous in themselves; and, what was worse, were composed in so loose, so declamatory, and often in so hyperbolical a strain, that no certain sense could be affixed to their doctrines, and any thing, or every thing, might, with some plausibility, be proved from them.

The inconvenience was sensibly felt by the Protestant world. And, after a prodigious waste of industry and erudition, a learned foreigner[241], at length, shewed the inutility and the folly of pursuing the contest any further. In a well-considered discourse, _On the use of the Fathers_, he clearly evinced, that their authority was much less, than was generally supposed, in _all_ points of religious controversy; and that their judgment was especially incompetent in _those_ points, which were agitated by the two parties. He evinced this conclusion by a variety of unanswerable arguments; and chiefly by shewing that the matters in debate were, for the most part, such as had never entered into the heads of those old writers, being, indeed, of much later growth, and having first sprung up in the barbarous ages. They could not, therefore, decide on questions, which they had no occasion to consider, and had, in fact, never considered; however their careless or figurative expression might be made to look that way, by the dextrous management of the controversialists.

This discovery had great effects. It opened the eyes of the more candid and intelligent inquirers: And our incomparable Chillingworth, with some others[242], took the advantage of it to set the controversy with the church of Rome, once more, on its proper foot; and to establish, for ever, the old principle, THAT THE BIBLE, and that only, (interpreted by our best reason) IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS.

Thus, ONE of the two pillars, on which the Protestant cause had been established, was happily restored. And, though Mr. Mede, about the same time, succeeded as well in his attempts to replace the OTHER, yet, through many concurring prejudices, the merit of that service hath not, hitherto, been so generally acknowledged. Whether _the Pope be the Antichrist of the prophets_, is still by some Protestants made a question. Yet, it seems as if it would not continue very long to be so: And it may not be too much to expect, that this institution will, hereafter, contribute to put an end to the dispute.

The Reformation will, then, be secured against the two invidious charges of SCHISM and HERESY (for _neither_ of which is there any ground, if _the Pope be Antichrist_, and if _the sole Rule of faith to a Christian be the canonical scriptures_) and will, thus, stand immoveably on its ancient and proper foundations.

In saying this, I do not, however, mean to assert, that the Reformation has no support, but in this principle—_that the Pope is Antichrist_. There are various other considerations, which are decisive in the controversy between us and the Papists. So that, if the prophecies should, after all, be found to suit any other person or power, better than the Roman Pontif, we shall only have one argument the less to urge against his pretensions, and the Protestant cause, in the mean time, stands secure. But, on the supposition that the prophecies are rightly, and must be exclusively, applied to the church of Rome (of which every man will judge for himself, from the evidence hereafter to be laid before him) on this supposition, I say, it must be allowed that the shortest and best defence of the Protestant cause is that which is taken from the authority of those prophecies, because they expressly enjoin a separation from that society, to which they are applied.

Ye perceive, then, in all views, the utility of studying this prophecy of the _Revelations_, provided there be reason to admit the completion of it in the history of the Christian Church, and particularly in the history of Papal Rome. The _importance_ and the _truth_ of Christianity will be seen in their full light—The _wisdom_ of the divine councils, in _permitting the Apostacy to take place for a time_, will be acknowledged—And the _honour_ of our common _Protestant profession_ will be effectually maintained.

CONCLUSION.

This Lecture is now brought down to that point, from which, possibly, ye expected me to set out. But, in the entrance on an argument, new to many persons, and misunderstood by most, it seemed expedient to take a wide compass. The true _scriptural idea_ of the subject, was to be opened, at large[243]; the _general argument_ from prophecy, enforced[244]; the _method_ of the prophetic system deduced, and further illustrated in a view of the prophecies more immediately respecting the Christian church[245]; Of _these_ prophecies, those concerning _Antichrist, or the apostasy of Papal Rome_, were to be cleared of all prejudices and objections[246]; and the _principles_, on which the _Apocalyptic_ prophecies, in particular, are to be explained, proposed and justified[247]: It was, further, necessary to bespeak your attention to the _argument_ from the Apocalyptic prophecies, especially, concerning Antichrist, by shewing the several presumptions there are of its _force_[248]; and by setting before you the _uses_, to which this whole inquiry may be applied[249].

This preliminary course, then, though it has been tedious, will not be thought improper, if it may serve, in any degree, to prepare and facilitate the execution of the main design, which is, _To interpret and apply particular prophecies_: A work, of labour indeed; but not unpleasant in itself; and (if carried on with that diligence and sobriety, which are, in reason, to be supposed) capable, I think, of affording to fair and attentive minds the fullest satisfaction.

The SEASON, I know, may be thought unfavourable to such an attempt. For the main stress must be laid on prophecies, about which Christians themselves are not agreed, at a time when the number of those persons is supposed to be very great, and increasing every day, who are not easily brought to acknowledge the reality of _any_ prophecies.

This _last_ would be an unwelcome consideration, if the fact were certain; I mean, if the present state of religion were altogether such as some, perhaps, wish, and as others too easily apprehend, it to be. But I hope, and believe, it is not; the truth of the case, so far as I am able to form a judgment of it, being no more than this. A few fashionable men make a noise in the world; and this clamour, being echoed on all sides from the shallow circles of their admirers, misleads the unwary into an opinion, that the irreligious spirit is universal and uncontroulable. Whereas, the good and wise, are modest and reserved: having no doubt themselves concerning the foundation of their faith, they pay but little regard to the cavils, which empty or corrupt men throw out against it. They either treat those cavils with a silent contempt; or, they lament in secret the libertinism of the age, without taking any vigorous measures to check and oppose it. Besides, they rarely come into what is called, _free company_; and they are too well employed, and at the same time too well informed, to hearken after every idle publication, on the side of irreligion.

For these, and the like reasons, the number of true believers is overlooked; or thought to be less considerable than, in fact, it is, and would presently be known to be, if a just estimate were taken of them.

Let me then, under this persuasion, express myself in the spirit, and almost in the words, of an ancient apologist[250]—“Let no man too hastily despair of the cause, we are now pleading. When we stand up in its defence, there are those who will lend an ear to us. For, whatever the vain, or the vicious may pretend, the prophetic writings are not fallen so low in the esteem of mankind, but that there are numberless persons of good sense and serious dispositions, who wish to see the truth of the Gospel confirmed by them; and are ready to embrace that truth, when fairly set before them, and supported by the clear evidence of historical testimony and well-interpreted scripture.”

Such is the language, which I am not afraid to hold to the desponding party among us. But should my confidence, or my candour, transport me too far, should even _their_ apprehensions be ever so well founded, the zeal of those, who preach the Gospel, is not to abate, but to exert itself with new vigour under so discouraging a prospect. If there be a way left to strike conviction into the hearts of unbelievers, it must probably be, by pressing this great point of prophetic inspiration, and by turning their attention on a _miracle_, now wrought, or ready to be wrought before their eyes. Or, let the event be what it will, our duty is to illustrate the word of prophecy, and to enforce it; to withstand the torrent of infidelity with what success we may, and, if it should prevail over all our efforts, to make full proof, at least, of our sincerity and good will.

In the mean time, it becomes all _others_ to retain and cultivate in themselves a respect for the prophetic writings; which either are, or, for any thing that has yet appeared, may be divine. To treat them, without the fullest conviction of their falshood, with neglect and scorn, is plainly indecent, and may be highly criminal and dangerous.

Josephus tells us, that, in the last dreadful ruin of his unhappy countrymen, it was familiar with them, _to make a jest of divine things, and to deride, as so many senseless tales and juggling impostures, the sacred oracles of their prophets_[251]; though they were then fulfilling before their eyes, and even upon themselves.

But the case, perhaps, is different; and _we_ have no concern, in the prophecies concerning Papal Rome.

What! Have WE no concern in those prophecies (supposing, I mean, that they are prophecies, at all, and, that there is reason for applying them to the church of Papal Rome). WE, who have but just been delivered from the more than Egyptian bondage, which they predict; and are, therefore, bound by every tye of interest, of gratitude, and of charity, to assert to ourselves, and to communicate to others, as far as we are able, the blessings of _that liberty, wherewith Christ has made us free_[252]. Have WE no concern in the several _uses_, mentioned in this discourse; and in many others, which I have not mentioned; it being well known, that _all inspired scripture_ (of which prophecy is so eminent a part) _is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness_[253]?

Or, supposing that we had no _direct_ concern in these prophecies, and supposing, farther, that the divine authority of them was even _problematical_; still it may deserve to be considered, I mean, by men the most libertine, who have not yet convinced themselves, by an exact and critical inquiry, of their utter falshood and insignificancy; I say, it merits the reflexion of all such, That the _contempt_ of the prophecies, under these circumstances, has a natural tendency to corrupt the temper and harden the heart. And is there no room to question, whether this conduct, plainly an _immoral_ conduct, be adviseable or safe?

Let us then, on a principle of _self-love_, if not of piety, _keep the sayings of this book_, concerning THE MAN OF SIN. From many appearances, the appointed time for the full completion of them may not be very remote. And it becomes our prudence to take heed that we be not found in the number of those, to whom that awful question is proposed—_How is it, that ye do not discern the signs of this time?_

Nay, there are prophecies, which, in that case, may concern us more nearly, than we think. St. Paul applied ONE of these, to the unbelieving Jews; of whose mockery, and of whose fate, ye have heared what their own historian witnesseth: And, if _we_ equal their obdurate spirit, _that_ prophecy may clearly be _applied_, and no man can say, that it was not _intended_ to be applied, to _ourselves_.

_Beware therefore_ (to sum up all in the tremendous words of the Apostle[254]) _Beware, lest that come upon you, which is spoken by the Prophets_: BEHOLD, YE DESPISERS, AND WONDER AND PERISH; FOR I WORK A WORK IN YOUR DAYS, A WORK, WHICH YE SHALL IN NO WISE UNDERSTAND, THOUGH A MAN DECLARE IT UNTO YOU.

APPENDIX.

APPENDIX:

CONTAINING

AN ANONYMOUS LETTER

TO THE AUTHOR OF THESE SERMONS,

WITH HIS ANSWER TO IT.

Soon after I had published this volume, I received an anonymous Letter, addressed to me at Thurcaston, of which the following is an exact copy.

LETTER TO DR. HURD.

SIR,

Some months ago it was reported, that Dr. Hurd was preparing to expound the Apocalypsis, and once more to prove the Pope to be Antichrist. The public were amazed. By the gay and by the busy world, the very attempt was treated as an object of ridicule. Polite scholars lamented, that you should be prevailed on to give up your more solid and liberal studies, for such obscure and unprofitable researches. Your own brethren of the church hinted, that it would be far more prudent to observe a respectful silence with regard to those awful and invidious mysteries. A more than common share of merit was requisite to surmount such adverse prejudices. Your Sermons, Sir, have been perused with pleasure by many, who had the strongest dislike to the name and subject. Every one has admired the vastness of the plan, the harmony of the proportions, and the elegance of the ornaments; and if any have remarked a weakness in the foundations, it has been imputed to the nature of the ground; and the taste of the Patron has been arraigned rather than the skill of the Architect.

Since you have undertaken the care and defence of this extensive province, I may be allowed, less as an opponent than as a disciple, to propose to you a few difficulties; about which I have sought more conviction than I have hitherto obtained. From the general cast of your writings, I flatter myself that I am speaking to a candid critic, and to a philosophical divine; whose first passion is the love of truth. On this pleasing supposition, let me venture to ask you, “_Whether, there is sufficient evidence that the Book of Daniel is really as ancient as it pretends to be._” You are sensible, that from this point the Golden Chain of Prophecy, which you have let down from Heaven to earth, is partly suspended.

There are two reasons which still force me to with-hold my assent. I. The author of the Book of Daniel is too well informed of the revolutions of the Persian and Macedonian empires, which are supposed to have happened long after his death. II. He is too ignorant of the transactions of his own times. In a word, he is too exact for a Prophet, and too fabulous for a contemporary historian.

I. The first of these objections was urged, fifteen hundred years ago, by the celebrated Porphyry. He not only frankly acknowledged, but carefully illustrated the distinct and accurate series of history, contained in the book of Daniel, as far as the death of Antiochus Epiphanes; for beyond that period, the author seems to have had no other guide than the dim and shadowy light of conjecture. The four empires are clearly delineated, the expedition of Xerxes into Greece, the rapid conquest of Persia by Alexander, his untimely death without posterity, the division of his vast monarchy into four kingdoms, one of which, Egypt, is mentioned by name, their various wars and intermarriages, the persecution of Antiochus, the prophanation of the Temple, and the invincible arms of the Romans, are described with as much perspicuity in the prophecies of Daniel, as in the histories of Justin and Diodorus. From such a perfect resemblance, the artful infidel would infer, that both were alike composed after the event. This conduct has supplied St. Jerom with a fund of learning, and an occasion of triumph; as if the philosopher, oppressed by the force of truth, had unwarily furnished arms for his own defeat. Yet, notwithstanding Jerom’s confidence, and in spite of my inclination to side with the father, rather than with the adversary of the church; the reasoning of the latter may I fear be justified by the rules of logic and criticism.

May I not assume as a principle equally consonant to experience, to reason, and even to true religion; “That we ought not to admit any thing as the immediate work of God, which can possibly be the work of man; and that whatever is said to deviate from the ordinary course of nature, should be ascribed to accident, to fraud, or to fiction; till we are fully satisfied, that it lies beyond the reach of those causes?” If we cast away this buckler, the blind fury of superstition, from every age of the world, and from every corner of the globe, will invade us naked and unarmed.