  1 This noble and eminent person was the second son of the Lord Chancellor Hardwicke. He had been, for many years, in the first reputation at the Bar; and having passed through the offices of Sollicitor and Attorney General, was, himself, made Lord Chancellor in January 1770, but died soon after his appointment to that high dignity—Luctuosum hoc suis; acerbum patriÆ; grave bonis omnibus. 2 The Society have given leave that this Lecture be preached in their Chapel, and on the days specified. 3 Thus Celsus represents the Jews—?d?? p?p?te ????????? p???a?ta?, ??t’ ?? ????, ??t’ ?? ????? a?t??? p?te ?e?e???????. Orig. contra Cels. l. iv. p. 181. ed. Spenc. Cantab. 1677. And in p. 175, he represents it as the highest absurdity in such reptiles to pretend that their insignificant concerns were the objects of divine prediction, and that the supreme Governor of the world, who had so many greater things upon his hands, should be only solicitous, as it were, to keep up a perpetual intercourse with them. See the whole passage, which the philosopher seems to have taken a pleasure to work up with much oratorical amplification.—Julian, too, was much pleased with this foolish objection. 4 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the dust of the balance. Isaiah xl. 15. 5 Si dii sint, est divinatio. 6 Si divinatio sit, dii sunt. 7 These objections were long since urged by Celsus, who speaks of the Jewish and Christian oracles, as fanatical, uncertain, and obscure, l. vii. p. 338—????sta, ?a? p??????a, ?a? p??t? ?d??a, ?? t? ?? ???a ??de?? ?? ???? ???? e??e?? d??a?t?, ?saf? ??? ?a? t? ?d??. as applicable to other subjects besides those to which they were referred—t?? e?? t? pe?? t??t?? ??afe????a? p??f?te?a? d??as?a? ?a? ?????? ?fa???e?? p???as?. l. i. p. 39.—nay, as much more applicable to others, than to Jesus—?????? ?????? ?fa??s???a? d??as?a? p??? p??a??te??? t? p??f?t??? ? t? ??s??. l. ii. p. 78. 8 Utrum tandem, per deos atque homines, magis verisimile est, vesanum remigem, aut aliquem nostrÛm, qui ibi tum eramus, me, Catonem, Varronem, Coponium ipsum, concilia deorum immortalium perspicere potuisse? Cic. Div. l. ii. c. 55. 9 Illud etiam requiro, cur, si deus ista visa nobis providendi caus dat, non vigilantibus potius dat quÀm dormientibus? l. ii. c. 61. 10 Jam verÒ quid opus est circuitione et amfractu, ut sit utendum interpretibus somniorum, potiÙs quÀm directo? Ibid. ??? ??d’. ?f’ ??? ??? ? f????, s???? f???. 12 Quod est enim criminis genus, aut rei esse alicujus ignarum, aut ipsum, quod nescias, sine aliqu profiteri dissimulatione nescire? aut uter magis videtur irrisione esse dignissimus vobis, qui sibi scientiam nullam tenebrosÆ rei alicujus assumit, an ille, qui retur se ex se apertissimÈ scire id, quod humanam transiliat notionem, et quod sit cÆcis obscuritatibus involutum? 13 1 Cor. ii. 11. 14 St. Matthew, vi. 22. 15 ?a?t???a t?? ??s??—the testimony of, or concerning Jesus, not—the testimony given by Jesus. The former appears to be the sense, for the following reasons. 1. The point asserted, is, “That the Angel, who had delivered this illustrious prophecy, was the fellow-servant of John, and not of John only, but of those who have the testimony of Jesus.” The proof is—for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus—i. e. the end of prophecy is to bear testimony, or, to do honour, to Jesus; therefore, I, says the Angel, who am endowed with this prophetic spirit, am but employed, as thou art; who, in thy character of Apostle or Evangelist, hast received the same general commission, namely, to bear testimony, or to do honour, to Jesus. See Acts x. 42. We are, therefore, fellow-servants, or joint labourers in the same cause. All this is clear and well-reasoned. But, now, take the words—the testimony of Jesus—in the sense of—the testimony given by Jesus—and how does the Angel’s having the spirit of prophecy, prove him to be a fellow-servant of John? for the reason assigned will then stand thus—for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony which Jesus gives of himself. The inference is, that the Angel was a true prophet. Again: how is the Angel proved, in this way, to be the fellow-servant of those who have the testimony of Jesus? Why, thus; the Angel had the spirit of prophecy, and prophecy was the gift of Christ; therefore he was the fellow-servant of those, who had the same gift, i. e. who were prophets. Without doubt. But why so strange a way of proving so plain a point? It had been enough to say—I am a prophet, as others are. Still, what was this to St. John? who, in this place, is not sustaining the character of a prophet; for the worship he was inclined to pay the Angel was on account of the Angel’s being, what himself was not, a prophet. Turn it which way you will, the reasoning is frivolous, or inconsequent. I conclude therefore, that not this, but the other interpretation gives the true sense of—the testimony of Jesus. 2. To speak of prophecy under the idea of a testimony to, or concerning Jesus, is conforming to the true scriptural idea of that gift. Thus we are told that—to him [i. e. to Jesus] give all the prophets witness—t??t? p??te? p??f?ta? a?t????s??, Acts x. 43. Prophecy, therefore, being the thing here spoken of, is rightly called the testimony, or witness to, or concerning Jesus. 3. Lastly, the construction is fully justified, 1. by observing that the genitive case [as here ??s??] is frequently used in scripture, not actively, but passively. See a variety of instances in Mede, p. 626, where he explains d?das?a??a? da??????: And 2. by referring the reader to the following passage of St. Paul, where the very expression of the text is so used—? ??? ?pa?s?????? t? a?t????? t?? ?????? ???—clearly, be not ashamed of bearing testimony to our Lord, 2 Tim. i. 8.—and to Rev. i. 9. where the Apostle tells us, he was in the isle of Patmos—d?? t?? ????? t?? Te??, ?a? d?? t?? a?t???a? ??s?? ??????—on account of his having been faithful in preaching the word of God, and in bearing testimony to Jesus Christ—and still more plainly, if possible, and indubitably, by referring him to Rev. xii. 17. where, speaking of the Dragon, he says, he went in wrath to make war on those, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ—t?? t?????t?? t?? ??t???? t?? Te??, ?a? ????t?? t?? a?t???a? t?? ??s?? ??????: for these objects of the Dragon’s fury are properly, THE WITNESSES, those faithful servants of truth, who suffered for the courageous and persevering testimony, they gave, in evil times, to Jesus Christ, and to his pure religion. On the whole, there cannot be the least doubt of the interpretation here given of this famous text. The expression fairly admits this interpretation; and (what the true critic will regard most) the scope of the place, or pertinence of the reasoning, addressed to St. John, admits no other. 16 John v. 39. 17 Luke xxiv. 27. 18 Acts iii. 18. 19 Acts iii. 24. See also Acts x. 43. 1 Pet. i. 10. 20 See especially the Epistles to the Hebrews, and Galatians. 21 Acts xxvi. 22. See farther, Acts xxviii. 23. Rom. iii. 21. Eph. ii. 19, &c. 22 Rev. x. 7. 23 Dr. Middleton’s Works, vol. III. p. 137. London, 1752, 4to. 24 Though by Moses, is here meant, not the prophecies of Moses only, but the books of Moses, containing those former prophecies, which, as St. Peter says, had been delivered, since the world began. 25 Dr. Middleton, p. 139. 26 D. L. Vol. V. p. 288. Lond. 1765. 27 Gal. iii. 24.—? ???? pa?da????? ??? ?????e? e?? ??????— 28 Coloss. ii. 17. Hence, St. Austin affirms roundly, “That, to such as consider the genius of the revealed system, the Old Testament must appear a continued prophecy of the New.”—Vetus Testamentum, rectÈ sentientibus, PROPHETIA est Novi Testamenti [contr. Faustum, l. xv.]: and St. Jerom speaks of it as a generally-received maxim, “That it is the manner of sacred scripture, to deliver, beforehand, the truth of futurity, in types”—hunc esse morem scripturÆ sanctÆ ut futurorum veritatem prÆmittat, in TYPIS [Hieron. T. III. 1127.]—I know, that the ancient Fathers, and from them many moderns, have exposed themselves to much and deserved censure, by pursuing this principle too minutely and superstitiously, in their mystical and allegorical comments on the Jewish scriptures. But men of sense will consider, that a principle is not therefore to be rejected, because it has been abused. For instance, that the Passover was instituted with a reference to the sacrifice of Christ, that the paschal Lamb was, in the language of St. Austin, a prophecy, or, in that of St. Jerom, a type, of the lamb of God, will seem highly credible to one who considers the aptness of the correspondence in two related parts of the same system: But, that the famous Law in Deuteronomy, concerning the marriage of a brother’s widow, was prophetic, or typical of the duty, incumbent on the ministers of the Gospel, to espouse the widowed church of Christ, is certainly much less clear, and will scarcely be admitted even on the authority of St. Austin.—Hoc ipsum—quod uxorem fratris ad hoc frater jussus est ducere, ut non sibi, sed illi sobolem suscitaret, ejusque vocaret nomine, quod inde nasceretur: quid aliud in figur prÆmonstrat, nisi quia unusquisque Evangelii prÆdicator ita debet in Ecclesi laborare, ut defuncto fratri, hoc est Christo, suscitet semen, qui pro nobis mortuus est, et quod suscitatum fuerit, ejus nomen accipiat? Contr. Faustum, l. 32.—St. Austin might, perhaps, say for himself, that he had an example of this practice in the mystical comments of St. Paul: it may be so: but an example, followed without warrant, in this instance, by the learned Father, and, not improbably, ill understood by him. 29 Adv. of Learning, B. II. 30 Dr. Middleton, Works, vol. III. p. 177. London, 1752, 4to. 31 Dr. Middleton, vol. III. p. 177. 32 See further on this subject, D. L. vol. V. p. 290. 33 Quand UN SEUL HOMME auroit fait un livre des prÉdictions de Jesus Christ pour le tems et pour la maniere, et que Jesus Christ seroit venu conformÉment À ces propheties, ce seroit une force infinie. Mais il y a bien plus ici. C’est une SUITE D’HOMMES durant quatre mille ans, qui constamment & sans variation viennent l’un ensuite de l’autre prÉdire ce mÊme avÉnement. C’est UN PEUPLE TOUT ENTIER qui l’annonce, et qui subsiste pendant quatre mille annÉes, pour rendre EN CORPS tÉmoignage des assurances qu’ils en ont, & dont ils ne peuvent Être detournÉs par quelques menaces et quelque persecution qu’on leur fasse: CECI EST TOUT AUTREMENT CONSIDERABLE. 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 prÆcipu 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 rect serie et ordinat 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. 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 ?a?ta ? Te?? p??e???se d?? t?? p??f?t???? p?e?at?? ???e?? ???es?a?, ??’, ?ta? ????ta?, ? ?p?????, ???’ ?? t?? p??e???s?a? p??e???. 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 custodi 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? 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 sublat—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 ??? t? ???? e??a? ???t?a ??att??, d?? t?? ?e??? t?? p???at?? ?????s?? ?? ??te??. And again—?? ???s??????, ?? p??s??????ta? p?te. 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. Certabant, urbem Romam, Remoramne vocarent. Omnibu’ cura viris, uter esset induperator. Cedunt de coelo ter quatuor corpora sancta Avium, prÆpetibus sese, pulchrisque locis dant. Conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse priora, Auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque. 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. 48 Hence Sidonius, in personating the city of Rome, makes her ask— Quid, rogo, bis seno mihi vulture Thuscus aruspex Portendit? And again, addressing himself to the same city, Jam propÈ fata tui bissenas vulturis alas Complebant (scis namque tuos, scis, Roma, labores.) And, before him, Claudian, to the same purpose— Tunc reputant annos, interceptoque volatu Vulturis, incidunt properatis sÆcula metis. 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 ?p’ a?????. 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 ?pe?d? t????? t? ?e??e?a ?d? p??ta ?p?de????e?, p??? ? ?e??s?a?, p???e??????a? d?? t?? p??f?t??, ?????? ?a? pe?? t?? ????? p??f?te????t??, e????t?? d? ???es?a?, p???? ??e?? ?? p??t?? ?e??s?????. 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—?e??e??, ?de?f?, p?sa? ????de? e?s?? ???da??? t?? pep??e???t??—Acts xxi. 20. 68 Acts x. 69 Acts xiii. 42. 48. 70 ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????p? ?a??????t? ?pe???e?a, ?t? p??t?t???? t? ??e???t? ???, ?a? a?t?? t?? ???s?? t?? pa?t?? ?????pe??? ?????? p???seta?, e? ? a?t???a, p??? ???e?? a?t?? ?????p?? ?e??e???, ?e???????a pe?? a?t?? e???e?, ?a? ??t?? ?e??e?a ???e?; 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. 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. ?p?? ??? ??? ? t? pt?a, ??e? s??a???s??ta? ?? ?et??.—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, ?t? ? t??t? ???e??? ??de? ??d??. 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.” 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 ??t???????—??t?, 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 su 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 purpure et aure radiantem; quid hunc, inquam, esse censetis? Nimirum, si charitate destituitur, solÂque scienti 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 sapienti et eloquenti 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 coepisse, 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 ??t’ a???s?? 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 propheti 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 immunditi 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— 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 prophet 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. 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, ??a??d???, 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 ??a??d???, 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—a? ?pt? ?efa?a?, ??? e?s?? ?pt?, ?p?? ? ???? ????ta? ?p’ a?t??, ?a? as??e?? ?pt? e?s??—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 qu attributa antiquÆ HierosolymÆ mysticÈ demonstrentur. 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, ????da, ???a??da, 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, 12o. 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 ??a?asa ?a?a ??a. 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 [4eme disc. sur l’hist. ecclesiastique, p. 173. Par. 1747, 12o.] The Pope, he says, is not an absolute monarch in the church over all things temporal and spiritual: That is, he ought not to arrogate to himself the power of an absolute monarch; for that the pope assumes to be such a monarch, and, in fact, exercised this supreme monarchical power in the church, through many ages, the learned and candid writer had indisputably shewn, in the discourse, whence these words are quoted. But now this monarchical sovereignty in all things temporal, as well us spiritual, is certainly one prophetical note or character, by which the person or power, styled Antichristian, is distinguished. Let the Pope, then, be what he will, we are warranted by M. Fleury himself to conclude, that he hath, at least, this mark of Antichrist. 217 In the persecution of heretics; which M. Bossuet regards as so little dishonourable to his communion, that he thinks it a point not to be called in question—calls the use of the sword in matters of religion, an undoubted right—and concludes, that there is no illusion more dangerous than to consider TOLERATION, as a mark of the true Church—l’exercise de la puissance du glaive dans les matieres de la religion & de la conscience; chose, que ne peÛt Être revoquÉe en doute—le droit est certain—il n’y a point d’illusion plus dangereuse que de donner LA SOUFFRANCE pour un caractere le vraye Eglise. Hist. des Var. l. x. p. 51. Par. 1740, 12o. Thus, this great doctor of the Catholic church, towards the close of the last century. And just now, another eminent writer of that communion very roundly defends the murder of the Bohemian martyrs at Constance, and (what is more provoking still) the fraud and ill-faith, through which the pious and tender-hearted Fathers of that council rushed to the perpetration of it. M. Crevier, Hist. de l’UniversitÉ de Paris, t. iii. l. vi. p. 435, &c. Par. 1761, 12o.—Can it be worth while to spend words in fixing this charge of intolerance on the church of Rome, when her ablest advocates, as we see, even in our days, openly triumph in it? But, then, hath she forgotten who it was that the prophet saw, drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus—Rev. xvii; 6?. Alas, no: But she wonders, by what figure of speech heretics are called Saints; and rebels to the Pope, Martyrs of Jesus. 218 See Vitringa Apocalyps. Exp. p. 603, and the authors cited by him: But, above all, see Mr. Mede’s exquisite and unanswerable discourse, entitled, The Apostacy of the latter times. ’Tis true, the Bishop of Meaux is pleased to divert himself with one part of this discourse; I mean, that part, which contains [ch. xvi. and xvii.] the learned writer’s interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy, concerning the Gods Mahuzzim. He finds something pleasant in this idea, or rather in this hard word, which he repeats so often, and in such a way, as if he thought the very sound of Mahuzzim, was enough to expose the comment and Commentator to contempt. Hist. des Var. l. xiii. p. 260, 261. But, after all, the ingenious Prelate would have done himself no discredit by being a little more serious in discussing an interpretation, which Sir Isaac Newton adopts without scruple [Obs. on the prophecies of Daniel, &c. p. 192]; and which, in mere respect to the prophet, he should, at least, have condescended to replace by some other and more reasonable interpretation. But it is the infirmity of this lively man, to be jocular out of season. Thus, again, he raillies Luther, for an assertion of his, delivered, it seems, with some assurance, and, in the form, as he pretends, of a prediction, That the Papal power would speedily decline and come to nothing, in consequence of the Reformation. The event, he says, has belied the prophet; the Pope still keeps his ground; and then (in an unlucky parenthesis) laughs to think, how many others, besides Luther, will be dashed to pieces against this STONE—bien d’autres, que Luther, se briseront contre cette PIERRE [Var. l. xiii. p. 244]. Now, if the glory of saying a good thing had not infatuated this Catholic Bishop, could he have helped starting at his own comparison of a stone, as applied to Luther and the Reformation, when it might so naturally have put him in mind of that prophetical STONE, which shall one day become a great mountain, and break in pieces a certain IMAGE, and stand for ever [Dan. ii. 35, 44.]? 219 L’Eglise, en nous enseignant qu’il est utile de prier les Saints, nous enseigne À les prier dans ce mÊme esprit de charitÉ, & selon cet ordre de sociÉtÉ fraternelle qui nous porte À demander le secours de nos freres vivans sur la terre; & le Catechisme du Concile de Trente conclut de cette doctrine, que si la qualitÉ de Mediateur, que l’ecriture donne À Jesus Christ, recevoit quelque prÉjudice de l’intercession des Saints qui regnent avec Dieu, elle n’eu recevroit pas moins de l’intercession des fideles qui vivent avec nous. 220 Vitringa, p. 603, 604. 221 Heb. x. 24. 222 1 Thess. v. 25. 1 Tim. ii. 1. and elsewhere, passim. 223 Coloss. ii. 18. 224 Heb. vii. 25. 225 Page 228-231, and p. 255. 226 “Whatsoever time of Messiah’s appearing Almighty God pointed out by Daniel’s LXX Weeks, yet I believe not that any Jew before the event, could infallibly design the time without some latitude; because they could not know infallibly where to pitch the head of their accounts, until the event discovered it: yet in some latitude they might.” Mede, Works, p. 757. And so in other instances. “I do not believe that the Jews themselves could certainly tell from which of their three captivities to begin that reckoning of LXX years, whose end should bring their return from Babylon, until the event assured them thereof.” 227 Dan. vii. 228 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7. 229 P. 182-184. But see especially Mede’s Works, p. 657. 230 Rev. xvii. 7. 231 Rev. i. 1. 232 Rev. ii. 8. xxi. 6. 233 Heb. ii. 3. 234 Hab. ii. 14. Is. xxvi. 9. 235 Rev. v. 10. 236 Ibid. xix. 6. 237 Rev. xviii. 6. 238 Rev. xviii. 4. 239 M. de Meaux: L’Apocalypse avec une explication. Avertisement aux Protestants, p. 303, &c. Par. 1690. 240 Sermon VIII. 241 M. DaillÉ. 242 Lord Falkland, Lord Digby, Dr. Jer. Taylor, &c. 243 Serm. I. II. III. 244 Serm. IV. 245 Serm. V. VI. 246 Serm. VII. VIII. 247 Serm. IX. X. 248 Serm. XI. 249 Sermon XII. 250 Verum non est desperandum. Fortasse, non canimus surdis. Nec enim tam in malo statu res est, ut desint sanÆ mentes, quibus et veritas placeat, et monstratum sibi rectum iter et videant et sequantur. 251 ??e??t? d? t? ?e?a, ?a? t??? t?? p??f?t?? ?es??? ?spe? ????t???? ????p???a?, ???e?a???· 252 Gal. v. 1. 253 2 Tim. iii. 16. 254 Acts xiii. 40, 41. 255 Judith iii. 8. 256 See his Posthumous Works, published by Lord Sheffield, 2 vols. in 4to. Lond. 1796. Vol. I. p. 463. Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original. Greek words beginning with ? have had the character replaced with p. Error noted in Errata list corrected. |
|
