Chapter IX: Part 9

[34] See the passage before referred to in Serm. I. p. 6.

[35] Daniel, c. ii.

[36] Est autem Quaternio iste regnorum Danielis (quod imprimis observari velim) CHRONOLOGIA QUÆDAM PROPHETICA, non tam annorum quàm regnorum intervallis distincta, ubi regnorum in præcipuâ orbis terrarum parte, simul ecclesiam et populum Dei complexâ, sibi invicem succedentium serie, monstratur tempus quo Christi regnum à tot seculis promissum et primùm inchoandum sit, idemque demum certis temporibus consummandum.

—Ex his, quæ dicta sunt, ratio elucet, quare, ex omnibus mundi regnis, quatuor hæc sola selegit Spiritus sanctus, quorum fata tam insigni ornaret prophetiâ; nempe quia ex his solis inter omnia mundi regna periodus temporum ejusmodi contexi potuit, qua rectâ serie et ordinatâ successione perduceret ad tempora et momenta regni Christi. Non verò quia nulla istis paria imperia, forsan et aliquibus majora, per omnia secula orbis visurus esset. Nam neque Saracenorum olím, neque hodie Turcarum, neque Tartarorum regna ditionis amplitudine Persico aut Græco, puto nec Assyrio, quicquam concedunt; imò, ni fallor, excedunt. MEDE’S Works, B. III. p. 712. Lond. 1672.

[37] To this purpose the late learned and ingenious author of the _Discourses on Prophecy_—“A figurative and dark description of a future event will be figurative and dark still, when the event happens.” And again—“No event can make a figurative or metaphorical expression to be a plain or literal one.” Bishop Sherlock, _Disc._ II. p. 32 and 36. London, 1749.

[38] Le dessein de Dieu est plus de perfectionner la volonté, que l’esprit. Or, la clarté parfaite ne serviroit qu’à l’esprit, & nuiroit à la volonté. Pascal.

[39] Rom. iv. 17.

[40] Ταῦτα ὁ Θεὸς προεμήνυσε διὰ τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος μέλλειν γίνεσθαι, ἵν’, ὅταν γένηται, μὴ ἀπιϛηθῇ, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ προειρῆσθαι πιϛευθῇ. J. MARTYR, _Apol._ I. c. 74.

[41] Yet hear in how decisive a tone a certain writer, of no small account with the infidel party, reprobates this argument:—“Je dis de plus, qu’aucune prophétie ne sauroit faire autorité pour moi.” [Rousseau, Œuvres, T. III. p. 156. La Haye, 1762.] “I say,” says Mr. Rousseau, “that the argument from prophecy can have no weight with me.” If you ask his reason, it follows. “Because, to give it any authority, three conditions are required, the concurrence of which is impossible. First, I must have been, myself, a witness of the prophecy, when delivered. Secondly, I must have been, myself; a witness of the event: And lastly, I must have it demonstrated to me that the agreement between the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous. For though the prophecy were clearer, and more precise, than a geometrical axiom, yet as the clearness of a prediction, made at hazard, does not render the accomplishment of it impossible, this accomplishment, allowing it to take place, proves nothing, strictly speaking, in favour of the person who foretold it.”

First, he says, _He must himself have been a witness of the prophecy_. But why so? Is there no way of being reasonably assured that a prophecy has been delivered, unless one has been actually present at the delivery of it? Does any one doubt, whether Socrates told his friend that he should die within three days’ time, because he did not hear these words from the mouth of the philosopher? But, there is less reason still to doubt whether Jesus uttered the prophecies, ascribed to him in the Gospel.

Next, _He must have been, himself, a witness of the event_. With just as good reason, as of the prophecy. However, it so happens that we are, or may be, if we please, witnesses of the events, foretold in many prophecies. What does he think of the dispersion of the Jews, for instance? Is he not a witness of this event?

But lastly, _He must have it demonstrated to him that the agreement between the prophecy and the event could not have been fortuitous_. What, will nothing less than _demonstration_ satisfy him? Will not a high degree of probability serve him to form a conclusion upon, nay, and to regulate his conduct? And will he stand out against the strongest degree of evidence, short of mathematical, or a proof _à la rigueur_, as he terms it, in a subject, where, from the nature of it, mathematical certainty is not to be had?

Surely one needs be no great philosopher to see that all which is wanting to give authority to the argument from prophecy, is, That we have _reason_ to admit the delivery of a prediction—that we have _reason_ to admit the completion of it—and that we have reason to think the agreement between the prediction and the event not fortuitous. And where is the impossibility that these three reasons should concur?—It is plain that the only one of these three reasons that appears in any degree problematical is the last concerning the completion of a prophecy in its event, whether it be fortuitous or not. Have I not reason then to say, as I do below p. 81, 82, that the strength of the infidel cause lies in this last consideration?—But what that strength is, we shall see as we go along.

[42] Socrates foretold that he should _dye within three days_: and the event followed.—_Est apud Platonem Socrates, cùm esset in custodiâ publicâ, dicens Critoni suo familiari, sibi post tertium diem esse moriendum—quod, ut est dictum, sic scribitur contigisse_ [Cic. de Div. l. i. c. 25.] Jesus foretold that he should suffer death by _crucifixion_. [John iii. 14. viii. 28. xii. 32.] He, likewise, foretold that he should _rise from the dead_, within _three days_ after his crucifixion. [John ii. 19. Matth. xii. 39, 40.]—The _first_ of these predictions might be a sagacious conjecture. Can it be said of such, as the _two last_,—

_Augurium, ratio est, et conjectura futuri_?
Ovid. Trist. l. I. viii. 51.

[43] Hoc si est in libris, in _quem hominem_, et in _quod tempus_ est? Callidè enim, qui illa composuit, perfecit, ut, quodcunque accidisset, prædictum videretur, _hominum et temporum definitione sublatâ_—said, in discredit of the Sibylline oracles [_De Div._ l. ii. p. 295. _fol. Lutet._ 1565]: how far applicable to the scriptural prophecies, will be seen in its place.

[44] Διὰ τὸ ὅλως εἶναι ἁμάρτημα ἔλαττον, διὰ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ πράγματος λέγουσιν οἱ μάντεις. And again—οἱ χρησμολόγοι, οὐ προσορίζονται πότε. Aristot. Rhet. l. iii. c. v.

[45] Permultorum exemplorum et nostra plena est respublica, et omnia regna, omnesque populi, cunctæque gentes, augurum prædictis multa incredibiliter vera cecidisse. _Cic. de Leg._ l. ii. p. 337.

[46]
Certabant, urbem Romam, Remoramne vocarent.
Omnibu’ cura viris, uter esset induperator.

Cedunt de cœlo ter quatuor corpora sancta
Avium, præpetibus sese, pulchrisque locis dant.
Conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse priora,
Auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque.
_Cic. de Div._ l. i. c. 48.

[47] Quot sæcula urbi Romæ debeantur, dicere meum non est: sed, quid apud Varronem legerim, non tacebo. Qui libro Antiquitatum duodevicesimo ait, fuisse Vettium Romæ in augurio non ignobilem, ingenio magno, cuivis docto in disceptando parem; eum se audisse dicentem: Si ita esset, ut traderent historici, de Romuli urbis condendæ auguriis, ac _duodecim vulturibus_; quoniam CXX annos incolumis præteriisset populus Romanus, ad _mille et ducentos_ perventurum. CENSORINUS _de die natali_, c. xvii. p. 97. Cantab. 1695.

[48] Hence Sidonius, in personating the city of Rome, makes her ask—

Quid, rogo, _bis seno_ mihi _vulture_ Thuscus aruspex
_Portendit_?
Sidon. Carm. vii. 55.

And again, addressing himself to the same city,

Jam propè fata _tui bissenas vulturis alas_
Complebant (scis namque tuos, scis, _Roma_, labores.)
Ib. ver. 358.

And, before him, Claudian, to the same purpose—

Tunc reputant annos, _interceptoque volatu
Vulturis_, incidunt properatis sæcula metis.
B. G. ver. 262.

[49] Medea, ver. 374.

[50] _Annis seris._

[51] Ferdinand.

[52] _Casu_, inquis. Itáne verò quicquam potest esse _casu_ factum, quod omnes habet in se numeros veritatis? Quatuor tali jacti, _casu_ Venereum efficiunt. Num etiam centum Venereos, si CCCC talos jeceris, _casu_ futuros putas? _De Div._ l. i. p. 259, Lutet. 1565.—Had the supposed case been fairly applied to the subject, there had been an end of the dispute; as may appear from the pitiful answer, made in the next book to this reasoning—dixisti multa de _casu_: ut, Venereum jaci posse casu, quatuor talis jactis; quadringentis, centum Venereos non posse casu consistere. Primùm, NESCIO, CUR NON POSSINT.—Was this, like a philosopher?

[53] Multa vera, inquit, evadere. Quid, quòd multo plura, falsa? Nónne ipsa varietas, quæ est propria fortunæ, fortunam esse causam, non naturam, docet? _De Div._ l. ii. p. 295. This, methinks, looks like sense.

[54] See the ancient apologists, who are frequent and large on this subject; and, of the moderns, see especially Huetii _Dem. Evang. Prop._ IX.—Bishop Kidder’s _Dem. of the Messias_, c. ii. p. 17, 18. London, 1726, fol.—Dr. Clarke’s _Evidences of Nat. and Rev. Religion_.—_Pensées de M. Pascal_, p. 108.

[55] I take these examples to be more in point, than those given by Bishop Butler in his _Analogy_, P. II c. vii. p. 386. Lond. 1740: not but those, too, have their weight.

[56] Grotius.

[57] Serm. II.

[58] Ἀπ’ αἰῶνος. Luke i. 70.

[59] This use and intent of prophecy was seen, and admirably expressed, by the great _M. Pascal_—“Les propheties sont mêlées de propheties particulieres, et de celles du Messie, afin que les propheties du Messie ne fussent pas sans _preuves_, et que les propheties particulieres ne fussent pas sans _fruit_.” _Pensées_, p. 112.

[60] _The Lord himself shall give you a sign_, Isai. vii. 14.—This SIGN (and the extraordinary introduction of it, in the words quoted, indicates no less) had plainly a recondite and even complicated meaning!

1. As addressed to _Ahaz_, it was simply an ASSURANCE, that his deliverance from his two great enemies was now at hand.

2. As addressed to the _house of David_—_Hear ye now, O house of David_—it was a TYPE of Christ.

3. It was, farther, a TOKEN, or pledge, that the remote deliverance of the house of David by Immanuel, should hereafter take place, just as the approaching deliverance of Ahaz, by the prophet’s Son, would be seen to do.

4. This sign, when fulfilled in the near event, would, thenceforward, become a PROOF, or evidence, that it would be fulfilled in the remote one.

5. Lastly, in the Antitype, the sign was a MIRACLE, properly so called.

So eminently was this Child, a SIGN! A _sign_, in all the _senses_ of the word, as employed by the Jewish prophets; and to all the _purposes_, for which signs were given.

[61] Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν τὰ γενόμενα ἤδη πάντα ἀποδείκνυμεν, πρὶν ἢ γενέσθαι, προκεκηρύχθαι διὰ τῶν προφητῶν, ἀνάγκη καὶ περὶ τῶν ὁμοίως προφητευθέντων, μελλόντων δὲ γίνεσθαι, πίϛιν ἔχειν ὡς πάντως γενησομένων. JUSTIN MARTYR, _Apol._ i. c. 87.

[62] Isaiah vii. 16. Daniel ix. 24.

[63] Mal. iv. 5. Luke xvi. 16.

[64] Joel ii. 28, 29.

[65] Is not their case exactly delineated by the prophet Ezekiel—_Mischief shall come upon mischief, and rumour shall be upon rumour; then shall they_ SEEK A VISION OF THE PROPHET; i. e. they shall seek what they shall not find, _for the_ LAW _shall perish from the priest, and_ COUNCIL _from the ancients_; i. e. their ecclesiastical and civil polity, to which prophecy was annexed, shall be utterly abolished. See Ezekiel vii. 26. and compare Isaiah iii. 1, 2.

[66] See A. VAN DALE, _de Oraculorum ethnicorum duratione atque interitu_.

[67] The sacred text says—_myriads_—θεωρεῖς, ἀδελφὲ, πόσαι μυριάδες εἶσιν Ἰουδαίων τῶν πεπιϛευκότων—Acts xxi. 20.

[68] Acts x.

[69] Acts xiii. 42. 48.

[70] Τίνι γὰρ ἂν λόγῳ ἀνθρώπῳ ϛαυρωθέντι ἐπειθόμεθα, ὅτι πρωτότοκος τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ ἐϛι, καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ παντὸς ἀνθρωπείου γένους ποιήσεται, εἰ μὴ μαρτύρια, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον, κεκηρυγμένα περὶ αὐτοῦ εὕρομεν, καὶ οὕτως γενόμενα ὁρῶμεν; JUSTIN MARTYR, _Apol._ i. c. 88.

[71] Acts xv. 18.

[72] Isaiah xl. 21.

[73] We see this design very plainly, in the prophecies of Jesus concerning _his own death and resurrection_; concerning _the descent of the holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost_; concerning _events, that were to befall his disciples_; and in other instances.

[74] La plus grande des preuves de Jesus Christ, ce sont les propheties. C’est aussi à quoi Dieu a la plus pourvû; car l’evenement, qui les a remplies, est un MIRACLE SUBSISTANT depuis la naissance de l’Eglise jusqu’ à la fin. _M. Pascal._

[75] For these particulars, see Dr. Jortin’s _Rem. on Ecclesiastical History_, vol. I. p. 20-89.

[76] An event, it must be owned, the more likely to happen, as the Jews had always been disposed to _trust to their high and fenced walls_; which yet could never defend them from their enemies, as their history shews, and, as Moses had distinctly foretold, _Deut._ xxviii. 52.

[77] Matth. xxiv. 28. and compare Luke xvii. 37. Ὅπου γὰρ ἐὰν ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα, ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί.—Meaning by _eagles_, the standards of the Roman army.—Some writers of name have, indeed, observed, that this is only a _proverbial_ expression. True: but proverbial prophecies are often fulfilled in the strict literal sense of the expression; as Grotius well observes on Matth. xxvi. 23. hîc quoque accidit, quod in _multis aliis vaticiniis_, ut verba—non tantùm secundùm proverbialem loquendi modum, sed etiam secundùm _exactissimam verborum significationem_ implerentur.—If the reader calls to mind the prediction of our Lord, as it is elsewhere expressed, without a figure—_when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with_ ARMIES [Luke, xxi. 20]—and compares it with the _event_, he will hardly make a doubt whether _eagles_, in those figurative predictions, which respect the same subject, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem, were not intended by our Lord to denote, the ROMAN armies.

[78] —debellare _superbos_. Virg.

[79] Assuredly this prophecy was not in the number of those, of which it hath been said—_The prophecy is not occasioned by the event, but the event by the prophecy—L’evenement n’est pas predit parcequ’il arrivera; mais il arrive parcequ’il a été predit._ ROUSSEAU, _Nouv. Hel._ t. iv. p. 314. n. Neuf. 1764.

[80] Matth. xvi. 28.

[81] Matth. xxiv. 34.

[82] Luke xxi. 20.

[83] Luke xxi. 18. Acts ii. 21. Mark xiii. 20.

[84] See the learned Bishop Newton’s _Dissertations on the Prophecies_, vol. ii, p. 268. n.

[85] Deut. xxviii.

[86] 1 Thess. ii. 16.

[87] Luke xxi. 22. 24.

[88] Rom. xi. 25.

[89] Jer. xlvi. 28.

[90] Isai. i. 21. Ezek. vi. 8.

[91] Lev. xxvi. 44.

[92] Hear the profound and reflecting M. Pascal—L’etat où l’on voit les Juifs est une grande preuve de la Religion. Car c’est une chose étonnante de voir ce peuple _subsister_ depuis tant d’années, & de le voir _toujours miserable_—et, quoique il soit contraire, D’ETRE MISERABLE, & DE SUBSISTER, il subsiste neanmoins toujours malgré sa misère. PENSEES, p. 115.

[93] —Multò minus nomen criminandum, in captivitate sacratorum suorum, qui supernam patriam veraci fide expectantes, _etiam in suis sedibus peregrinos se esse noverunt_. _Aug. De Civ. Dei_, l. i. 15.

[94] Jer. xlvi. 28.

[95] Ps. ii. 8.

[96] Mal. i. 2.

[97] Is. xlix. 6.

[98] Mark xvi. 15.

[99] The reader may see many of them collected, and the general argument from them well inforced, by Mr. Bullock, in his VINDICATION, Part II.

[100] As in the case of _Mahometanism_, for instance.

[101] What the Philosopher Celsus thought of such a project, we learn from a curious passage in Origen. It being usual with the Christians of that time, as of every other, _to pray for the conversion of the whole world to the Christian faith_, the philosopher laughs at the extravagance of this petition. He observes upon it, ὅτι ὁ τοῦτο οἰόμενος οἶδεν οὐδέν. The words are not easily translated. But the _meaning_ of them is, That he regarded an universal agreement in one mode of religious belief, as a perfect chimæra: and the _turn_ of the words is so contrived, as to express the utmost contempt of those, who, in their supreme ignorance of mankind, could entertain so senseless an idea. _Contr. Celsum_, l. viii. _sub. fin._

[102] Matth. xxiii. 15.

[103] Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a _new covenant_ with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers—but this shall be my covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord, _I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts_, &c. Jer. xxxi. 31-33. See also Jer. iii. 16.

[104] For behold, _I create new heavens and a new earth_: and the _former shall not be remembered nor come into mind_. Is. lxv. 17.

[105] The _Gentiles_ shall see thy righteousness, and all Kings, thy glory: And thou shalt be _called by a new name_, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. Is. lxii. 2.

[106] Is. lx. 22.

[107] Matth. xiii. 31, 32.

[108] Si enim et hostes _exertos_, non tantùm vindices occultos, agere vellemus, _deesset nobis vis numerorum et copiarum_? _Tertull. Apologet._ c. 37.

[109] Could it be _foreseen_, that nothing of this sort would happen? When the _Reformation_ was set on foot in Germany, Luther and his adherents resolved to carry it on in the spirit of the Gospel, that is, by _pacific measures_. But how soon did passion and policy strike in, to drive them from this purpose! The Catholics were intolerant: the Reformed grew powerful: and then, what was too naturally to be expected, followed.

If it be said, that the Gospel hath not been always propagated, _without force_; I acknowledge, it has not: but then I observe, 1. that it was incontestably so propagated, till the conversion of the Roman empire; in which event, alone, the prophecies appear to have had a reasonable completion. 2. that the _force employed_, has generally been the force of one Christian sect, directed against some other (in which scandalous contentions the prophecies have no concern), not in the propagation of Christianity itself in unbelieving countries. 3. that the _way of force_, when professedly used against unbelievers, though, in _some_ cases, it has contributed to the enlargement of Christ’s kingdom, has yet, in _others_ (where, too, the utmost force and zeal were combined) very signally failed of success; of which the _crusades against the Mahometans_ afford a striking instance: and 4. lastly, that we expect the _final universal_ prevalence of the Christian faith from the same spiritual arms only, which were first employed with such success in the propagation of it.

[110] An eminent writer, with the view, indeed, of disgracing the Reformation, hath set this matter in a very just light: “Que nos freres, says he, ouvrent donc les yeux; qu’ils les jettent sur l’ancienne Eglise, qui durant tant de siécles d’une persecution si cruelle ne s’est jamais échapée, ni un seul moment, ni dans un seul homme, & qu’on a vûë aussi soûmise sous Diocletien, et même sous Julien l’apostat, lorsqu’elle remplissoit deja toute la terre, que sous Neron & sous Domitien, lorsqu’elle ne faisoit que de naitre: C’EST LA QU’ON VOIT VERITABLEMENT LE DOIGT DE DIEU.” _Hist. des Variations_, l. x. c. 53.

_The finger of God_, as the learned writer says, was indeed conspicuous in this conduct of the primitive Christians, because it fulfilled the prophecies (so unlikely to be fulfilled) concerning the _manner_ in which Christianity was to obtain an establishment in the world. If the conduct of the _reformed_ had not this merit, it was because the prophecies did not extend to the reformation of Christian religion, but to the introduction and first settlement of it. The agents, in this last work of Providence, were therefore left to the natural influence of their passions, and they acted too frequently as those passions impelled them.

For the rest, how far the _general_ precepts of the Gospel require a passive submission and non-resistance to outrageous intolerance, whether absolutely, and in all cases, is a point of nice discussion; in which I take no part, at present, because I am not now making the apology of the _reformed_, but shewing the completion of the prophecies concerning the _propagators_ of Christianity: and the wonder to see them so punctually completed, is not lessened, but increased, by supposing, that the precepts of the Gospel leave mankind to the free use of their natural rights, in the case of extreme violence and injustice.

[111] _The vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lye: though it tarry, wait for it, because it shall surely come, it will not tarry._ Habakkuk, ii. 3.

[112] By the word _Tyranny_, here and elsewhere in these discourses, as applied to the Pope, I would be understood to mean, that _super-eminent dominion_, which he exercised, or claimed a _right_ of exercising, over the princes and states of his communion, in all affairs both temporal and spiritual.—I use the word (somewhat improperly, perhaps) for the sake of brevity, as I know of no other single term, that so well expresses my meaning.

[113] What is here said of the scriptural division of _time_, with regard to the affairs of the _Church_, is enough for my purpose. There is another division of time, in the prophetic scriptures, with regard to the _kingdoms of the world_; concerning which the reader may consult BISHOP KIDDER’S _Dem. of the Messiah_, Part iii. ch. ix.; and especially Mr. MEDE’S _Apostasy of the latter times_, ch. xi.

[114] Matth. xxiv. 24. Mark xiii. 21.

[115] 1 Ep. John, iv. 3.

[116] Ἀντίχριϛος—ἀντι, in the sense either of _pro_, or _contra_.

[117] Grotius says, “Sicut _Anticæsarem_ dicimus qui contra Cæsarem se Cæsarem vult dici atque Cæsar haberi, sic _Antichristus_ est qui se vero Christo opponit _eo modo_ ut ipse Christus haberi velit.” OP. t. iv. p. 490.—The learned commentator did not reflect, that words are not always used according to the strict import of their etymologies. _False Christs_, we will say, are, in the strict sense of the word, _Antichrists_. But the question is, in _what_ sense this word is used of the person called, by way of eminence, THE ANTICHRIST. This must be collected from the attributes given to him in the prophecies themselves, not from the rigorous etymology of the term. The case was plainly this. St. John is speaking of the _false Christs_, who had appeared in his time; and, to disgrace them the more effectually in the minds of those to whom he writes, he brands them with the name of _Antichrists_: not so much respecting the exact sense of the word, as the ideas of aversion, which, he knew, it would excite. For the tradition of the church concerning _Antichrist_, had made this appellation, of all others, the most opprobrious, and hateful.—Besides, it is not so clear, as Grotius supposes, that the strict sense of the word, _Antichristus_, must be—_is, qui se vero Christo opponit eo modo ut ipse Christus haberi velit_. Cæsar, who generally expressed himself with exact propriety, thought fit, on a certain occasion, to assume the name and character of, ANTICATO. Was it Cæsar’s purpose to say, or was it his ambition to pretend, “_that he opposed himself to the true Cato_, EO MODO _ut ipse_ CATO _haberi vellet_?”

[118] Eusebius mentions, JUDAS, H. E. l. vi. c. 2; and DIONYSIUS, E. H. l. vii. c. 10.—_Others_, seemed to expect that Antichrist would appear as the Messiah of the Jews; but in the person of a Roman Emperor; as will be explained presently. See the next note.

[119] See many citations to this purpose in Dr. Lardner’s _Cred._ p. ii. v. p. 210, 11, 12.

[120] Jerom, in Dan. vii. Mede, p. 657.

[121] Quisquis se universalem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione suâ Antichristum præcurrit. GREG. M. Op. Ep. xxx. l. vi. _Par._ 1533.

[122] In hâc ejus superbiâ, quid aliud nisi propinqua jam Antichristi esse tempora designatur? Ep. xxxiv. l. iv.

[123] With all his merits, Gregory the Great, it is to be feared, had some Antichristian marks upon him; and his adversary of the East might have gone some way towards _fixing_ them upon his _Grandeur_, if he had but observed, that Antichrist, whoever he was, and whensoever to appear in the world, is clearly marked out in the prophecies, as having his seat in _old Rome_.

[124] A. 991.

[125] Quid hunc, reverendi patres, in sublimi solio residentem, veste purpureâ et aureâ radiantem; quid hunc, inquam, esse censetis? Nimirum, si charitate destituitur, solâque scientiâ inflatur et extollitur, ANTICHRISTUS est, _in templo Dei sedens, et se ostendens tanquam sit Deus_. USSER. _de Christian. Eccl. successione & statu_, c. ii. p. 36. Lond. 1613.—ILLYRICI _Cat. Test. Ver._ p. 1558. _Officin. Jacob. Stoër et Jacob. Chouël._—This Arnulph, Bishop of Orleans, was esteemed, in his day, the wisest and most eloquent of all the Gallican prelates. Arnulphus—de quo sic initio ejus synodi scriptum est—_Inter omnes Galliarum episcopos sapientiâ et eloquentiâ clarissimus habebatur_. Ib.

[126] “Ecclesiam vanitatis, & SEDEM SATANÆ vocabat.” USSER. _de Christian. Eccl. succes. & statu_, c. 7. s. xxiv. p. 196.—In Apocalypsin scripsisse testatur Bostonius Buriensis. CAVE, H. L. vol. ii. p. 131. _Oxon._ 1743.

[127] Plerique omnes boni, aperti, justi, ingenui, simplices, tum imperium Antichristi cœpisse, quod ea quæ Christus servator noster tot annos ante nobis cantavit, evenisse eo tempore cernebant, memoriæ literarum prodidêre. ANNAL. BOIORUM, l. v. p. 591. Ingolstad. 1554.

[128] CAVE, H. L. vol. ii. p. 258. Conc. Flor. 1104. USSER. _De Christ. Eccl. succ. & stat._ c. v. s. v. p. 109.

[129] MINISTRI CHRISTI SUNT, ET SERVIUNT ANTICHRISTO [_Serm. sup. Cantic._ xxxiii.]—It is true, by Antichrist, he seems not to mean the Pope, but, in general, an evil principle, which then domineered in the church. Yet he refers us to the famous passage in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, ch. ii. And he tells us in his 56th epistle, that he had heard one Norbert, a man of exemplary piety, say, That Antichrist would be revealed in that age. Hence it seems probable, that some one person or power was in his eye. After all, he says, that Norbert’s reasons did not satisfy him. Yet, in another epistle, he asserts expressly—Bestia illa de Apocalypsi, cui datum est os loquens blasphemias, et bellum gerere cum sanctis, PETRI CATHEDRAM OCCUPAT, tanquam leo paratus ad prædam. Ep. cxxv: which was, in other words, to call the Pope, Antichrist. It is evident that St. Bernard applied the prophecies in the Revelation to the successor of St. Peter.—I mention these things so particularly, to shew, what his sentiments on this head really were; which have been misrepresented by hasty writers, who transcribe from each other, without examining, themselves, the authorities, they quote.

[130] CAVE, H. L. v. ii. 278. ROG. DE HOVEDEN, ANNAL. _Pars Post._ p. 681. Ed. Franc. 1601.—In this age [XIIth], was composed a very remarkable tract on the subject of Antichrist, which may be seen in Mede’s Works, p. 721.—Mr. Mede supposes, and seems indeed to have proved, that the _true_ doctrine of Antichrist was, and was intended to be, a mystery, or secret, till the 12th century. Whence it follows that the testimonies, hitherto alledged, are only passionate or declamatory exaggerations, or to be esteemed, as he says, _pro parabolicè et_ κάτ’ αὔξησιν _dictis, declamatorum more_. _Works_, p. 722.

I admit the truth of the observation: but hold, that the _use_ of the deduction, here made, is not in the least affected by it. For my purpose in giving this catalogue of witnesses to the doctrine of Antichrist, was not to _justify_ that doctrine, in the _true_, that is, Protestant sense of it (for then, not only the preceding testimonies, but even some of the following, would have been omitted) but merely to shew that the general, at least, and confused idea of some such doctrine did, in fact, _subsist_ in the ancient Christian church. That what idea they had of this doctrine was founded on the _prophecies_, is clear from the terms in which they express themselves. And, though the doctrine itself was very imperfectly conceived, and inconsequentially applied by them, still their language shews that they had some notion of _a corrupt spiritual power, which was_, in their sense of the prophets, _to domineer in the church of Rome_: whence I draw this conclusion (for the sake of which, this whole deduction is made), That the present application of the prophecies concerning Antichrist to papal Rome, is not wholly new and unauthorized; as the prejudice, I am here combating, supposeth it to be.

[131] VITRINGA in Apoc. p. 747. Amst. 1719. USSER. De Eccl. succ. & stat. c. 6 and 8. THUANUS, l. vi. s. 16. vol. i. p. 221. Ed. Buckley.

[132] See, especially, the famous speech of Everhard, bishop of Saltzbourg, at the assembly of Ratisbonne, in the time of Gregory the IXth; inserted at large in Aventinus, _Ann. Boior._ l. vii. p. 684. The following extracts from it will be thought curious. Hildebrandus ante annos centum atque septuaginta primus specie religionis _Antichristi_ imperii fundamenta jecit. p. 684.

Flamines illi _Babyloniæ_ [meaning the Bishops of Rome] soli regnare cupiunt, ferre parem non possunt, non desistent donec omnia pedibus suis conculcaverint, atque _in templo Dei sedeant, extollanturque supra omne id, quod colitur_. Ib.

Nova consilia sub pectore volutat, ut proprium sibi constituat imperium, _leges commutat_, suas sancit; contaminat, diripit, spoliat, fraudat, occidit, perditus homo ille (_quem Antichristum vocare solent_) in cujus fronte _contumeliæ nomen_ scriptum est, “Deus sum, errare non possum,” _in templo Dei sedet_, longè latéque dominatur. _Ib._

—_Reges decem pariter existunt_—_Decem Cornua_—_Cornuque parvulum_—Quid hâc prophetiâ apertius? p. 685.

[133] MATTH. PARIS, ad ann. 1253. p. 874. ed. Watts, 1640.

[134] Purgat. 32.

[135] Epistolarum sine titulo Liber. Ep. xvi. p. 130. Basil. 1581.—Many strokes in this epistle are, to the last degree, severe and caustic. Addressing himself to Rome, “Illa equidem ipsa es, says he, quam in spiritu sacer vidit Evangelista.—Populi et gentes et linguæ, aquæ sunt super quas meretrix sedes; recognosce habitum. Mulier circumdata purpurâ, et coccino, et inaurata auro, et lapide pretioso, et margaritis, habens poculum aureum in manu suâ, plenum abominatione et immunditiâ fornicationis ejus.—Audi reliqua. Et vidi (inquit) mulierem ebriam de sanguine sanctorum, et de sanguine martyrum Jesu. Quid siles?”—And so goes on to apply the prophecies of the Revelation to the church of Rome, in terms that furnish out a good comment on the famous verse in one of his poems—

_Gia Roma, hor Babylonia false è ria_—

Numberless passages in the writings of Petrarch speak of Rome, under the name of _Babylon_. But an equal stress is not to be laid on all of these. It should be remembered, that the Popes, in Petrarch’s time, resided at Avignon; greatly to the disparagement of themselves, as he thought, and especially of Rome; of which this singular man was little less than idolatrous. The situation of the place, surrounded by waters, and his splenetic concern for the _exiled_ Church (for under this idea, he painted to himself the Pope’s migration to the banks of Avignon) brought to his mind the condition of the Jewish church in the Babylonian captivity. And this parallel was all, perhaps, that he meant to insinuate in most of those passages. But, when he applies the prophecies to Rome, as to the _Apocalyptic_ Babylon (as he clearly does in the epistle under consideration) his meaning is not equivocal: and we do him but justice to give him an honourable place among the TESTES VERITATIS.

[136] See the catalogue of his works in Cave’s Hist. Lit. vol. ii. App. p. 63; in which is the following book of Dialogues. Dialogorum libri quatuor; quorum—quartus Romanæ Ecclesiæ sacramenta, ejus pestiferam vocationem, ANTICHRISTI REGNUM, fratrum fraudulentam originem atque eorum hypocrisim, variaque nostro ævo scitu dignissima, perstringit.

[137] Mandantes omnibus, &c.—_tempus quoque præfixum futurorum malorum, vel_ ANTICHRISTI ADVENTUM—_prædicare, vel asserere, nequaquam præsumant_. BIN. CONC. _Lateran._ v. _sub Leone_ X. _Sess._ xi. _p._ 632.

[138] M. d’Alembert, indeed, goes further. He acquaints us, that this _charge_ is now out of date, and that nobody, either within or without the Romish communion, makes it any longer. For, speaking of a public inscription at Geneva, in which _the Pope is called Antichrist_, he animadverts on this disgrace of that Protestant people, and very kindly suggests to them what their improved sentiments and language should be on that subject. _As for the Catholics_ (says he, very gravely,) _the Pope is regarded by them, as the Head of the true Church: By sage and moderate Protestants, he is seen in the light of a sovereign prince, whom they respect, though they do not obey him: But, in an age like this_, HE IS NO LONGER ANTICHRIST IN THE OPINION OF ANYBODY. “Pour les Catholiques, le Pape est le chef de la veritable Eglise; pour les Protestants sages & modérés, c’est un Souverein qu’ils respectent comme Prince sans lui obéir: _mais dans un siécle tel que nôtre, il n’est plus l’Antichrist pour personne_.” Encyclopedie, Art. GENEVE.—If the present age be, here, truly characterized, it was high time, or rather it was too late, to found this Protestant Lecture.

[139] Rompons leurs liens, dit-il, et rejettons leur joug de dessus nos têtes. _Bossuet, H. V._ l. i. c. 26.

[140] _Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues._ Rev. xviii. 4.

[141] Il [Luther] condamnoit les Bohemiens qui s’etoient separez de nôtre communion, et protestoit qu’il ne lui arriveroit jamais de tomber dans _un semblable Schisme_. _Bossuet, Hist. des Variat._ l. i. p. 21. _Par._ 1740. And again, p. 28; Apres, dit-il [Luther,] que j’eus surmonté tous les argumens qu’on proposoit, il en restoit un dernier qu’à peine je pus surmonter par le secours de Jesus Christ avec une extrême difficulté & beaucoup d’angoisse; _c’est qu’il falloit écouter l’Eglise_.—One sees for what purpose M. Bossuet quotes these passages, and others of the same kind, from the writings of Luther. However, they shew very clearly how deep an impression the idea of Schism had made on the mind even of this intrepid Reformer.

[142] _Contra Bullam Antichristi_—a tract of Luther, so called, against the Bull of Leo X.

[143] Luther reconnoit après la rupture ouverte, que dans les commencemens il étoit _comme au desespoir_— _Bossuet, H. V._ c. 26.

[144] Hor. 1 Ep. vi. 15.

[145] Grotius was more than a great, he was a fashionable man. No wonder therefore that, under the influence of two such prejudices, his opinions should find followers; which yet they would scarce have found with us, if the political state of that time had not been a _third_ prejudice in their favour. See the Bishop of Gloucester’s Sermon, _On the rise of Antichrist_.

[146] “The folly of interpreters has been, to foretell times and things by this prophecy, as if God designed to make them prophets.” _Sir I. Newton_, p. 251.

[147] “God gave this, and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men’s curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things; but that, after they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted by the event; and his own providence, not the interpreter’s, be then manifested thereby to the world.” _Sir I. Newton_, p. 251.

[148] “’Tis a part of this prophecy, that it should not be understood before the last age of the world; and therefore it makes for the credit of the prophecy, that it is not yet understood.” _Sir I. Newton_, p. 251.

[149] St. Jerom, who lived in this time, speaks in the very terms, here supposed, _Romanus orbis_ RUIT. Ep. iii.

[150] Isai. lxv. 17.—2 Pet. iii. 4. 13.

[151] Rev. x. 7.

[152] Daniel xii. 10.

[153] Mede, More, Daubuz, Vitringa, and, above all, the learned Founder of this Lecture.

[154] Hence, the allusion of our great poet,

—or from behind the moon
In dim eclipse disastrous twilight sheds
On half the nations, and _with fear of change
Perplexes monarchs_—P. L. i. 596.

[155] See these two works, published together, under the title of _Artemidori Daldiani et Achmetis Sereimi F. Oneirocritica_, by Nicolaus Rigaltius. _Lutet._ 1603.

[156] Non enim credo, _nullo percepto_ aut cæteros artifices versari in suo munere, aut eos, qui divinatione utantur, futura prædicere. _Cic. de Fato_, c. 6.

[157] Ezekiel xiii. 9.

[158] See Dr. Lancaster’s _Symbolical_ and _Alphabetical Dictionary_, prefixed to his abridgment of the Commentary on the Revelations, by Mr. Daubuz.

[159] See this objection urged by Mr. Collins in his _Grounds and Reasons_, &c. p. 220. Lond. 1737.

[160] Jeremiah xxxiv. 3.

[161] Ezek. xii. 13.

[162] See Grotius on Matth. xxvi. 23.

[163] As to the _authority_ of this extraordinary book (although the discussion of this point be foreign to my present purpose) it may be proper to acquaint such persons, as have not made the inquiry for themselves, and are perhaps incapable of making it, with the sentiments, which our ablest writers have entertained of it.

Mr. Mede, a capable inquirer, if there ever was any, says roundly—“The Apocalypse hath more human (not to speak of _divine_) authority, than any other book of the New Testament besides, even from the time it was first delivered.” _Works_, p. 602.

—And to the same purpose, Sir Isaac Newton—“I do not find any other book of the New Testament so strongly attested, or commented upon so early, as this of the Apocalypse.” _Observations on Daniel_, &c. page 249.

Thus, these two incomparable men. What some minute critics have said, or insinuated to the contrary, is not worth mentioning; farther, than just to observe, that, if the authority of this momentous book be indeed questionable, the church of Rome could hardly have failed long since to make the discovery, or to triumph in it.

_Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridæ._

[164] Mal. i. 11.

[165] Lament. i. 15.

[166] Isaiah xl. 20.

[167] Ezek. xx. 47.

[168] Isaiah ii. 2.

[169] Chap. xvii.

[170] The learned Bishop Andrews says expressly—“You shall scarce find a phrase in the Revelations of St. John, that is not taken out of Daniel, or some other prophet.” _Vix reperias apud Johannem phrasin aliquam, nisi vel ex Daniele, vel ex alio aliquo prophetâ desumptam._ Resp. ad Bellarm. Apol. p. 234.

[171] An eminent writer gives an exact idea of it, in these words—“The style [of the Revelations] is very prophetical, as to the things spoken: And very hebraizing, as to the speaking of them. Exceeding much of the old prophets language and matter adduced to intimate new stories: And exceeding much of the Jews language and allusion to their customs and opinions, thereby to speak the things more familiarly to be understood.” Dr. LIGHTFOOT, _Harm. of the N. T._ p. 154, London, 1655.

[172] I have heard it affirmed, on good grounds, that the late Dr. Samuel Clarke, being asked in conversation by a friend, whether, as he had taken much pains to interpret the other books of Scripture, he had never attempted any thing on the Revelations, replied, _He had not; but that, notwithstanding, he thought he understood every word of it_: Not meaning, we may be sure, that he knew how to apply every part of that prophecy, but that he understood the _phraseology_, in which it was written; which a man, so conversant as he was in the style of scripture, might very well do.—Calvin, indeed, has been commended for making the opposite declaration: And, it may be, with good reason: For (not to derogate in any respect from the character of this great man) the language of the Scriptures, and especially of the prophetical scriptures, was in no degree so well understood in his time, as it was in that of Dr. S. Clarke.

[173] “As for me, I am conscious of my weakness and unworthiness; being, when these kind of thoughts first possessed me, looking another way with a prejudice incompatible to this.” _General Pref. to Mede’s Works_, p. 20, from a MS Letter.

[174] He printed only a few copies of his _Clavis Apocalyptica_ in 1627, at his own expence, and for the use of his friends. _Pref. to his Commentary._

[175] His Commentary, on the principles of his _Clavis_, did not appear till 1632.

[176] “I am by nature _cunctabundus_ in all things, but in this [his Exposition] let no man blame me, if I take more pause than ordinary.” MS Letter in _Gen. Pref._ p. 22. And again, in a Letter of reply _ad animadversiones Ludovici de Dieu_, “Eo ingenio sum (delicatulo, an moroso) ut nisi ubi interpretatio commodè et absque salebris eat, nunquam mihi satisfacere soleam.” WORKS, p. 569. Yet of this _sage_ man, could the Bishop of Meaux allow himself to speak thus negligently—_Il s’est rendu de nos jours célébre en Angleterre_ PAR SES DOCTES REVERIES _sur l’Apocalypse_. _Hist. des Var._ l. xiii. p. 257. But M. de Meaux knew what he did, when he _affected_ this contempt of Joseph Mede. He was then at liberty to turn himself from the ablest advocate of the Protestant cause, to the _weakest_; I mean, M. Jurieu, whose indiscretions afforded, indeed, ample scope for the raillery of this lively prelate. Mr. Mede was not a man to be confuted in this way, and still less by a fanciful and ill-supported _Exposition of the Apocalypse_.

[177] As appears from his backwardness to publish his discoveries, and from his unconcern about the reception of them. But see his Letter to Mr. Hartlib, Ep. 96, p. 881; and compare with his answer to Dr. Twisse, Ep. 51, p. 811. See also Ep. 98, to Mr. Hartlib, Aug. 6, 1638, not long before his death, in which are these words:

“I have not been very obtrusive unto men, to acquaint them with my notions and conceits—for some of them that are but lately known have lain by me above these twenty years.” P. 883.

[178] _The point of the Pope’s being Antichrist, as a dead fly, marred the savour of_ THAT OINTMENT—meaning the merit he had of being known to entertain some opinions; then much cherished by the ruling clergy. Ep. 56, p. 818. He says afterwards of himself, in the same Letter, _I thank God, I never made any thing hitherto the caster of my resolution, but reason and evidence, on what side soever the advantage or disadvantage fell_.

[179] His friends speak much of his chearful disposition.—But I draw this conclusion from the tenour of his _life_ and _writings_; and, above all, from that famous declaration which he made in confidence to a friend, that, _if he might but obtain a Donative sine curâ, of so much value as, together with his fellowship_ [of Christ’s College in Cambridge,] _should enable him to keep a horse, for his recreation, he would set up his staff for this world_. _App. to his Life_, p. 40.—The simplicity of this declaration, makes one confident of its truth. And a man of so moderate desires, was in no danger of having his temper _soured_ by disappointments.

[180] Siquidem, quæ isti tuo Vaticinio jam, ut dixi, cognito, cætera contemporaverint Vaticinia, iisdem procul dubio temporibus sunt applicanda; quæ autem præcedunt, non nisi de præcedaneis; quæ succedunt, pariter de succedaneis eventibus sunt interpretanda. _Clavis Apocalyptica_, in Mede's _Works_, p. 432.

[181] From ch. iv. to the end of ch. ix: And from ch. x. to the end.

[182] The sounding of the seventh trumpet.

[183] Ch. x. 7.

[184] Ch. xi. 15.

[185] The reader may form a distinct idea of the method, in which the _whole_ book of the Apocalypse is disposed, by observing that it is resolvable into THREE great parts.

The FIRST part, is that of the EPISTLES to the seven churches, contained in the three first chapters, and is not at all considered by Mr. Mede.

The SECOND part (with which Mr. Mede begins his commentary) is that of the SEALED BOOK, from ch. iv. to ch. x; and contains _the fates of the Empire_, or its civil revolutions, yet, with a reference, still, to the state and fortune of the Christian Church.

The THIRD part, is that of the OPEN BOOK, with what follows to the end; and exhibits in a more minute and extended view, _the fates of the Christian Church_, especially during its Apostacy, and after its recovery from it.

This THIRD division may, further, be considered as consisting of TWO parts. The FIRST contains, in ch. xi, a summary view of what should befal the Christian Church, contemporary with the events deduced in the _second_ part concerning the Empire; and is given in this place, in order to connect the _second_ and _third_ parts, and to shew their correspondence and contemporaneity. See Mr. Mede’s Clavis, p. 424; and Comment. Apocalypt. p. 476.

The SECOND part of the last division, from ch. xii. to the end, gives a detailed account of what should befal the Christian Church in distinct, and, several of them, synchronical visions.

It has been thought by some an objection to Mr. Mede’s scheme, “That the prophecy of the _open book_, (which contains, according to him, all the remaining visions to the end of the Revelations) is not only, for the _subject_, more considerable, but, for the _size_ of the volume, larger, than the Prophecy of the _sealed book_; whereas, the name given to it, βιβλαρίδιον, or _little book_, seems very clearly to express the contrary.”

If this objection be thought material (for I do not find that Mr. Mede condescends to take any notice of it) it _might_, perhaps, be obviated by supposing, That the _little book_ contains the xith chapter, only, being a compendium of the _third_ division, and inserted in this place to shew the contemporaneity of the _two last_ and principal parts; and that all which follows to the end, is to be regarded as a sort of _comment_ on the little book, or larger explication of its contents: As if the design had been to consult our weakness, in presenting us, _first_, with an abridged view of a great scheme, and _then_, in drawing it out at large, for our more distinct information.

But the _truer_ answer to the difficulty I take to be, That the _sealed book_ is represented under the idea of a _book_, properly so called, which, upon being opened, presents to the eye the several objects and schemes of the prophecy, distinctly delineated on the _roll_, or volume, when it comes to be unfolded, and which, therefore, must needs be considered as a _large_ one. The _open book_, on the other hand, is to be regarded, not as a real, but _metaphorical_ book; and is not produced to be read or contemplated, after a gradual evolution of it, but to be _eaten_, at once, by the prophet; like that book, to which it alludes, and from which the imagery is taken, in the visions of Ezekiel [ii. 8. and iii. 1, 2, 3.]—to _eat a book_, being, in the hieroglyphics, to _meditate upon_, and to _digest_, its contents. So that this book, to distinguish it from the other, is named a _little book_: not, that the revelations, conveyed by it, are less considerable, or less numerous, than the other, but that the _use_, to which it is put, required only that it should be spoken of, as a _book_ simply; the diminutive form being here suggested in the term βιβλαρίδιον, that the metaphor of _eating_ it might seem the easier; and (because the former _sealed_ book was of an immense size) might, under this idea, present itself the more naturally, and give less offence, to the imagination.

[186] I am not ignorant that many interpreters have thought otherwise. But possibly they have not enough attended to the advice, which Mr. Mede used to give to such of his friends as did not enter into his ideas—EXPENDE. My meaning is, that, if they had possessed the patience, or the sagacity, to understand this great Inventor, before they objected to him, they would perhaps have seen cause to acquiesce in the _Method_, pointed out by him, instead of attempting in various ways, and to little purpose, to improve upon it.

[187] Dan. vii. 7, 8.—I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast—had _ten horns_. I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them _another little horn_—Compare with ver. 24.—The ten horns out of this kingdom are _ten kings_ (or kingdoms) that shall arise: and _another shall arise after them_.

[188] Mede, p. 712.

[189] Sir Isaac Newton, p. 31.

[190] Dan. vii. 11, 12.—Concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their _dominion taken away_: yet their _lives were prolonged_ for a season and a time.

[191] Rev. xvii. 3, 4. 9. 12. 18.

[192] Martial. l. iv. ep. 64.

[193] Propert. l. III. ix. 57.

[194] Georg. l. ii. ver. 532.

[195] Compare Æn. vi. ver. 776. &c.

[196] Rev. xvii. 1.

[197] Ibid. ver. 15.

[198] _Septem_ BESTIÆ _capita_, duplex typus: primò, septem montes seu colles sunt, super quos urbs Bestiæ metropolis sita est; deinde, septem quoque, idque in iisdem (quod unitas typi denotat) Collibus, Regum seu Dynastarum successivorum ordines. Works, p. 524.

[199] The whole passage in the original stands thus—αἱ ἑπτὰ κεφαλαὶ, ὄρη εἰσὶν ἑπτὰ, ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ κάθηται ἐπ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ βασιλεῖς ἑπτά εἰσιν—of which the following is the literal translation—The SEVEN HEADS are _seven hills_, where the woman sitteth upon them, AND are _seven kings_—Every one sees that the connective particle, AND, refers to _heads_, and not to _hills_.

[200] Dan. vii. 24.—The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall arise after them, and He shall be _diverse_ from the first—

[201] 2 Thess. ii. 4.

[202] See Grotius, on the place: who applies this prophecy to Caius Cæsar, and thinks it was fulfilled when that Emperor commanded his statue to be placed in the temple of Jerusalem. A strange conjecture! which many writers, and very lately an excellent prelate, has well confuted. Bishop Newton’s _Diss. on the Prophecies_, Vol. ii. p. 375.

[203] _Hierosolyma_ in scriptis prophetarum occurrit ut emblema alterius cujusdam _Hierosolymæ_, mysticè sic dicendæ; quæ _Hierosolyma_ non potest esse urbs quædam in montibus Zione & Acra constructa, qualis fuit antiqua illa; sed oportet esse _rem spiritualem_, in quâ attributa antiquæ Hierosolymæ _mysticè_ demonstrentur. VITRINGA, _Apocalyps: Exp. & Illustr._ p. 762.

[204] Rev. xiii. 11.

[205] John i. 29.

[206] Dan. vii. 8. 20. Rev. xvii. 1. 16, 17.

[207] Dan. vii. 21. Rev. xvii. 14. xiii. 7. 16.

[208] Rev. xvii. 5.

[209] Le saint apôtre a bien pris garde de ne pas nommer la prostituée, dont il parle, une adultere, μοιχάδα, μοιχαλίδα, mais une femme publique—sans jamais avoir employé le mot d’_adultere_; tant il étoit attentif à éviter l’idée d’une épouse infidelle.—Loin de marquer la Prostituée, comme une _Eglize corrompuë_, nous avons montré clairement qu’il a pris des idées toutes contraires à celles-là, puis qu’au lieu de produire une _Jerusalem infidelle_, ou du moins une _Samarie_, autrefois partie du peuple saint, commee il auroit fait s’il avoit voulu nous représenter une eglise corrompuë, il nous propose une _Babylone_, qui jamais n’a eté nommée dans l’alliance de Dieu. Nous avons aussi remarqué qu’il n’avoit jamais donné à la Prostituée le titre d’épouse infidelle ou repudiée; mais que par tout il s’étoit servi du terme de _fornication_, et de tous ceux qui revenoient au même sens. Je sçais que ces mots se confondent quelquefois avec celui d’_adultere_, mais _le fort du raisonnement consiste en ce que de propos deliberé_ Saint Jean _evite toujours ce dernier mot_ qui marqueroit _la foi violée, le mariage souillé, et l’alliance rompuë_, &c.—_L’ Apocalypse avec une Explication; par Messire Jaques Benigne Bossuet, Evéque de Meaux_. PREF. 26, 29. AVERTISEMENT, p. 321-323. Par. 1690, 12^{o}.

[210] The reason I take to be, That _fornication_, that is, vague lust, and general prostitution, served best to express the unbridled and indiscriminate passion of the Jews for the dæmon-worship of their neighbours: Whereas the crime of _adultery_, though of a blacker dye, and, in that view, more proper to expose the malignity of their offence, does not convey the same ideas of universal pollution, being usually committed, _because_ it is so criminal, with more distinction and restraint.

[211] Isaiah xxiii. 16, 17. Nahum iii. 4.

[212] —_for it is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon their idols._ Jer. l. 38. Again: _Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord’s hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine, therefore the nations are mad_. Jer. li. 7. Compare Rev. xvii.—_the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication_.

[213] Mr. Mede. Works, p. 49.

[214] Deut. xxiii. 17.

[215] Rev. xvii. 6 ἐθαύμασα θαῦμα μέγα.

[216] Not held of the civil power, or acknowledged to be so held, but usurped upon it, and insolently directed against it; as is well known from ecclesiastical history. _The Pope is not Antichrist: God forbid!_ (says the good Abbé Fleury, with a zeal becoming a member of the Papal communion.) _But neither is he impeccable, nor has he an absolute authority in the church over all things both temporal and spiritual_—_Le pape n’est pas l’Antichrist; à Dieu ne plaise; mais il n’est pas impeccable, ni monarque absolu dans l’eglise pour le temporel et pour le spirituel_ [4^{eme} _disc. sur l’hist. ecclesiastique_, p. 173. Par. 1747, 12^{o}.]