Chapter IV: Part 4

2. It should, further, I think, be observed, that a _sect_, whether you will call it of _religion_, or _philosophy_, may subsist through a long tract of ages; I mean, that certain opinions may continue to be professed by some people, or other, without intermission; as may be true of the _doctrine_ concerning _the two principles_, at all times so prevalent in the East; of that species of eastern _idolatry_, which consists in the worship of _fire_; and in other instances. But that these opinions, in circumstances any thing like those of the Jews, should still be professed, not only by some, but by the _same_ men, that is, by men known to be of the same extraction, as well as of a certain persuasion; this, again, is, I think, a circumstance of great singularity, and altogether unprecedented in the case of any other people. Who knows, of what race or family the present Manichees are descended, or the professors of the old Persian idolatry? The followers of the Mosaic law, are every where known to be of the stock of Abraham. They are distinguished in all places, as being Jews by _descent_, as well as by _Religion_.

3. Supposing, what I think cannot be shewn, that the history of the world furnishes an instance or two of a people circumstanced in all respects, as the Jews are; these extraordinary cases would not much abate the wonder, we are now contemplating. For how happened it, that a prophecy delivered above three thousand years ago concerning the fate of a _particular_ people, should be so exactly verified, as it has hitherto been, when that fate is so far from being a common one, that it has only taken place, in one or two instances besides, within the compass of so many ages? And still more, how should it enter into the head of Moses to deliver this prophecy, when, at the time of his delivering it, he had absolutely no instance before his eyes of such fate, in the case of _any_ people?

These things, then, deserve to be well and seriously considered.

Lastly, We believe, on the faith of the sacred oracles, that the Jews shall _never be destroyed utterly_, but shall exist a distinct people, as they have hitherto done, _till the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled_. But here, you will say, the prophets indulged a natural prejudice in favour of their own nation; it being the way of all people to delight in such dreams of _existence and perpetuity_. It may be so: But see, whether this _dream_ hath ever yet been so far realized, in the case of any other people. The Romans, for instance, were as partial to themselves, and doted as much on the idea of their _perpetuity_, as the Jews. But what now is become of their _eternal empire_? Consider, therefore, the singular fate of the Jews through so many ages, and see whether it be not credible from what is past, that the prophet was moved by something more than a spirit of _national vanity_, when he said, _Fear thou not, O Jacob my servant, saith the Lord, for I am with thee; for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have driven thee_, BUT I WILL NOT MAKE A FULL END OF THEE[94].

To these prophecies concerning _Jerusalem_, and the _Jews_, I add

III. _A third, concerning_ THE CALL AND CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES TO CHRISTIANITY.

This prophecy is very remarkable, whether we consider—_the matter of it_—_the persons, by whom it was delivered_—or, _the manner, in which it hath been fulfilled_.

1. As it had been declared from the beginning, that in the promised seed, _all the nations of the earth should be blessed_, so the Gospel, or, the good tidings of that blessing, was, in due time, to be communicated to _all nations_. Further still, this Gospel was not only to be published to all nations, but to be acknowledged and received by them. There are numberless prophecies to this purpose in the books of the Old Testament: prophecies, which say expressly—_that God would give unto the Messiah the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession_[95]—_that from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, his name should be great among the Gentiles_[96]—_It is a light thing_, says the prophet Isaiah, addressing himself, in the person of the Almighty, to the Messiah, _that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the end of the earth_[97]. And Jesus himself, when he commissioned his Apostles to publish his doctrine, did it in these words—GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD, AND PREACH THE GOSPEL TO EVERY CREATURE[98].

It is unquestionable, therefore, from these and other passages[99], that not the Jews only, but all nations were to be instructed in the Christian faith; that the Gospel was to be an universal religion; and that, thus, the Messiah was to be, in every sense, the Saviour of mankind. There is no doubt, I say, but that such is the language of the prophets; and that they clearly suppose the dispensation of the Gospel to have these views, and to terminate in this event.

But now, let any man consider with himself, what it is to proselyte the whole race of mankind to one faith, and to one religion. Let him revolve in his mind this great, this magnificent idea. Let him, next, turn his thoughts on what history and experience may suggest to him on the subject. And then let him tell us, whether there be not something extraordinary in this project; whether, indeed, there be any other example of this sort in the annals of mankind.

In the old world, the institutors of _pagan religion_ looked no further, than to single communities: each destined his ceremonies for his own people only; and never presumed so far on the truth or importance of his religious scheme, as to set it up for a standard of belief or worship to the other nations of the earth. Even the _Jewish ritual_ was so constituted as to respect the Jews only, and was even practicable no where but in the land of Judæa.

But this idea of universality was equally strange to the _Doctors_, as to the Legislators, of the ancient world. Sects of philosophy, there were many; espoused with zeal, and propagated with industry; and some of them, of no small extent. Yet the most sanguine, or the most successful of these speculatists never conceived so much as the idea of bringing all nations into their system. They presumed, indeed, that truth, or probability at least, was on the side of their favourite opinions; but they beheld a neglect of them in others, with a sort of indifference; and, contenting themselves with their own superior skill or felicity, left it to the rest of the world to philosophize in their own way, and on their own principles. They seem not to have thought it either necessary or possible, that their own sentiments should become the standing, universal persuasion of mankind.

_Ambition_, I know, hath been sometimes enterprizing enough to think of subduing the whole world. But this was the ambition of _power_, not of religion, or philosophy: it was an ambition to subdue the _bodies_, not the minds of men. This _last_ was a project, too big for a Cæsar or an Alexander, much more, for a Numa or an Aristotle, to entertain. And I think it certain, that, except in the scheme of Christianity, or such other schemes of revelation as have been copied from it[100], we shall no where find the idea of _universality_ to have taken place in any religious or philosophical sect whatsoever[101].

If then this idea was _familiar_ to the Jewish and Christian prophets, you will, at least, conclude that this circumstance is remarkable enough to engage your attention; and you will naturally ask, how it came to pass that those prophets should adopt so strange a fancy, which appears not to have entered into the views or conceptions of other men.

When you are in this train of inquiry, it will surprize you still more to find,

2. _By what persons, these prophecies_, so remarkable for the _matter_ of them, _were announced_.

The publishers of this extraordinary doctrine were, in one word, JEWS: that is, men of the most narrow and contracted minds; men, brought up in the highest conceit of themselves, and in the utmost scorn and contempt of the Gentiles; men, accustomed to think themselves the only favourites of Heaven, and to regard the rest of the world, as outcasts of its providence; men, in short, induced, partly, by the genius of their religion, ill understood, and partly, by their carnal temper, long indulged, to believe with assurance the perpetuity, the eternity of their divine law; and to deem it impossible that God should reign anywhere but in the land of Israel, or should impart his blessings to any that lived out of the Jewish pale.

Was it, now, to be expected of such men, as these, that they should enlarge their ideas so far as to form the project of a new and universal religion; a religion, not imprinted outwardly on the flesh, but _written in the heart_; a religion, that was to supersede and evacuate the law of Moses, to which they were so immoderately addicted, and to enlighten and bless and save the heathen, whom they so perfectly despised and abhorred?

You will suspect, perhaps, that the meaning of these prophecies was no more, than that the Jewish Law should finally prevail over all other Laws, and be the sole predominant religion of the whole earth: a prejudice, very likely, it may be said, to possess the minds of such a people as the Jews; and suitable enough to that zeal, which prompted them _to compass sea and land_, as Jesus himself observed of them, _to make one proselyte_[102].

But the contrary is apparent from the _structure_ of the Jewish Law, which, as I said, was so contrived, that it could not be observed out of Judæa—from the _tenour_ of that Law, addressed only to the house of Israel, and not obligatory to any other people—from express _declarations_ of the prophets themselves; who call the dispensation of the Messiah, _a new Covenant_, a covenant _written in the heart_, in opposition to the law of circumcision[103]; who say, that the Lord will _create new heavens and a new earth_, that is, in the prophetic language, will institute a _new_ dispensation of religion, different from that, which he had given to the Jews, and _subversive_ of it[104]; who, lastly, speak of this dispensation, as of _one_, that should be established under _a new name_, and should be embraced by the Gentiles, as _such_, that is, by men, converted immediately to this new religion from their state of Gentilism, without passing through the strait gate of the Jewish Law[105].

Judge, then, whether the prophets did not mean more than a _proselytism_ to their own religion, when they predicted, and in such terms, the future conversion of the Gentiles; and whether such ideas, as these, could ever have entered into the hearts of Jews, if something, besides and above the natural suggestion of their own minds, had not inspired their prophecies.

Add to all this, if you please, that Jesus was himself a Jew, and (to regard him as a man only) in the lowest class of the Jews, that is, of the most confined and bigoted education; and yet was not restrained by his prejudices from giving that sublime command to his followers—GO AND TEACH ALL NATIONS.

But enough on the _doctrine_ itself, and on the _character_ of its teachers. It remains only

3. To add one word, _on the manner, in which this prophecy_, concerning the conversion of the Gentile world, _appears to have been completed_.

There are especially TWO prophecies on this subject, which merit our attentive consideration. ONE of them asserts, that the conversion of the Gentile world shall take its rise from small and very unpromising beginnings, and yet shall prevail speedily and to a vast extent; the OTHER, that it shall prevail by pacific means only, without the intervention of any force or violence whatsoever.

1. The FORMER of these prophecies is expressed thus—_A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time_[106]. In allusion to this prophecy, concerning the rise and progress of Christianity, is that parable of our Lord applied to the kingdom of heaven—_the kingdom of heaven_, says he, _is like to a grain of mustard-seed, which a man took and sowed in his field: which indeed is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree: so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof_[107]. And, with regard to the _celerity_ with which this tree should grow up, we have a prophecy from Christ himself, and that wonderfully fulfilled—that _his Gospel should be preached to all the world for a testimony to all nations_, before the destruction of Jerusalem, or within forty years from the date of the prophecy.

Now, consider the state of the Gospel, at our Lord’s ascension. It was left in the hands of a few, mean, unlearned, dispirited persons: without any countenance from authority; and with every difficulty, every terror, opposed to them, and placed distinctly within their view. _Matth._ xxiv. 9. Yet these men were commissioned to spread this Gospel through the world, and had an express promise, that they should succeed in their attempt. Against all appearance, the success followed. In less than half a century, _the sound of the Gospel went out into all lands_; and, within three centuries from the death of Christ, Christianity ascended the imperial throne; _and had the utmost parts of the earth for its possession_.

To encrease the wonder, this amazing revolution was brought about, by _pacific methods only_; as was, likewise, foretold

2. In the LATTER of the _two_ prophecies, to which I before alluded.

Jesus himself quotes this prophecy from Isaiah in the following words—_Behold, my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment_, i. e. declare a new Law, _to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry, neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed shall he not break, and smoaking flax shall he not quench_, i. e. (as all interpreters explain these proverbial expressions) he shall not employ the least degree of force or violence in the propagation of this law, _till he send forth judgment unto victory_, till it finally prevail against all opposition; _And in his name shall the Gentiles trust_. Matth. xii. 18-21.

Let any man read the history of Christianity, from its first publication in Judæa, to the conversion of Constantine, and then see whether this prophecy hath not been exactly and illustriously completed. The followers of Jesus were numerous enough, long before the empire became Christian, to have attempted the way of force, had it been permitted to them[108]: and the insults, the oppressions, the persecutions, which they suffered from their Pagan enemies, were enough to provoke the most passive tempers to some acts of hostility and resistance[109]. But every one knows, that they had recourse to no arms, but those of the spirit: they took no advantage of distracted times, to raise commotions in behalf of the _new_ religion, or to suppress the _old_ one: _a bruised reed did they not break, and smoaking flax did they not quench_: yet with meekness, and patience, and suffering; by piety, by reason, by the secret influence of a divine blessing attending on these feeble efforts, the doctrine of the cross insensibly gained ground, spread itself far and wide, and in the end became _victorious_ over all the rage and power and sophistry of an unbelieving world[110].

That this _victory_ hath not been, hitherto, so complete, as to answer the promise of an _absolute universality_, we readily acknowledge; but are in no pain for the event[111]; as the same oracles, which have thus far been verified, suppose the present condition of things; and, what is more, assure us of a time to come, when _the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in_.

One word more, and I have done. If it be now thought, that these THREE prophecies—_concerning the destruction of Jerusalem_—_the dispersion of the Jews_—and _the call of the Gentiles_—have been clearly accomplished; and yet were of that nature, that no human foresight could deliver them, nor any probable conjuncture of human affairs account for the accomplishment of them, you will conclude that they were truly divine, and that we do not abuse your credulity in alledging such prophecies, in proof of our holy religion. You will see and acknowledge that there _are_ prophecies, recorded in scripture, _concerning the Christian Church_; and that _these_ prophecies, in particular, concerning it, have been remarkably fulfilled. Ye will, therefore, the less wonder to find, that there are still _other_ prophecies, relative to the kingdom of Christ, as administered in this world; and will, of course, be disposed to consider, with less prejudice, what may further be said in support of them.

SERMON VII.

PROPHECIES CONCERNING ANTICHRIST.

1 EP. JOHN ii. 18.

—_Ye have heared that Antichrist shall come_—

Among the more remarkable prophecies concerning the Christian Church, there are several, which describe the rise, progress, and downfal of a certain Power, represented under various symbols or images, and distinguished by many appellations; but more especially known by the name of ANTICHRIST.

These prophecies come now, in the order of this Lecture, to be considered. The subject is, in a high degree, curious and important; but of no easy discussion: not so much on the account of any peculiar difficulty in the prophecies themselves, as from the prejudice of party in _explaining_ them, and still more, from the general prejudice that lies against every _attempt_ to explain them.

To make my way through these obstructions, I shall begin with laying before you a clear and distinct state of the question itself, which is chiefly agitated by inquirers into these prophecies.

It is admitted, that many predictions in the Old and New Testament, particularly in the book of Daniel, in St. Paul’s Epistles, and in the Revelations of St. John, clearly point out a very extraordinary power, which was to manifest itself _in the latter times_, that is, in the times subsequent to the introduction of Christianity. The characters, by which this power (acknowledged by all under the name of Antichrist) is chiefly distinguished, are those of _Tyranny_[112], _Idolatry_, and _Intolerance_. And, to abridge our trouble in searching after this _three-headed_ monster, we are directed by the prophets to look for him within the boundaries of what is properly called, the Roman Empire, and even in the city of Rome itself.

Thus far there is no dispute. The only question is, To what Roman power, exhibiting those characters, the prophecies are to be applied. And even this question is reduced within narrow limits. For TWO Powers only have subsisted in Rome, from the Christian æra to the present times (within which period we are, again, allowed to expect the reign of Antichrist); the Roman Emperor, in the first place; and, afterwards, the Roman Pontifs. So that, on the whole, the single point in debate is merely this, Whether Imperial, or Papal Rome, be that Antichristian Power, which the prophets foretold. The church of Rome holds, for obvious reasons, that the _Imperial_ power is the object of the prophecies: the Protestants have, on the contrary, their reasons for maintaining, that _Papal_ Rome is that power, which the prophecies had in view, and in which alone they are truly and properly verified.

This, then, is the meaning of that famous inquiry concerning Antichrist: and I must desire you to keep your attention steadily fixed on the question, as here stated; while I endeavour to furnish you with the proper means of deciding upon it.

The obvious method of doing this, would be, To lay before you, directly, the prophecies themselves, and to examine them by the light of sober criticism, and authentic history. But, because it is no new or difficult thing to misrepresent _facts_, and to misinterpret _scripture_, to pervert, in short, these two instruments of truth to any ends, which prejudice hath in view; and because I know how natural it is for you to suspect such management in the present case, where the zeal of party is supposed, on either side, to exclude, or over-power, the love of truth; for _these reasons_, it may be convenient to take a larger compass, and, by a previous historical deduction of this controversy, to let you see in what light it has been regarded, through the several ages of the Christian Church.

I. THE FIRST ACCOUNT, we meet with in scripture, of the power in question, I mean, under his proper name of _Antichrist_, is in the first epistle of St. John, from which the text is taken. The whole passage runs thus—_Little children, it is the last time: And, as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time_.

To understand these words, we must call to mind what hath been already, more than once, observed concerning the scriptural division of time into two great portions, The FORMER, and LATTER times. By the _former_, is meant the times preceding the Christian æra; by the _latter_, the times subsequent to it. Correspondent to this partition of time, is the double advent of Christ, of which I before gave a distinct idea. His _first_ advent was, when he came in the flesh, at Jerusalem: his _second_ advent to be understood of his coming in his kingdom, through all the ages of the Christian Church.

But though the _latter times_, in the general sense of scripture, be thus comprehensive, they are further subdivided into other constituent portions, in which some particular state of Christ’s kingdom is administered, and within which it is completed. In reference to this subordinate division of time in the Christian dispensation, the _coming_ of Christ is, also, proportionably multiplied. He _comes_ in each division; that is, as oft as he thinks fit to interpose by any signal act of his power and providence. The whole period, in which any distinct state of his kingdom is carrying on, is likewise called _the latter time_; and the concluding part of that period is distinguished by the name of the _last hour_: as if the whole of each period were considered as _one day_; and the close of each period, as the end, or _last hour_, of that day.

Thus, the time that elapsed from Christ’s ascension to the destruction of Jerusalem, being one of the subdivisions, before mentioned, is called the _latter times_; and the eve of its destruction, is called the _last hour_. He _was coming_ through the whole time: he _came_ in the end of it. And the like use of these terms is to be made, in other instances. We are to apply them in the same manner to the _reign of Antichrist_—_to the Millennium_—to the _day of judgment_. Each of these states, into which the _latter times_, or the times of Christianity, are divided, is likewise spoken of under the idea of the _latter times_; and the season, in which each is drawing to an end, is the _last hour_ of that state[113].

Thus much being premised, it is easy to give a just exposition of the text. _Little children, it is the last time_, or _hour_—that is, the destruction of Jerusalem is at hand; as indeed it followed very soon after the date of this Epistle. _And, as ye have heared that Antichrist shall come_—that, in some future period, called the _last times_, an hostile power, which we know by the name of Antichrist, shall arise and prevail in the world, _even now_, we may see the commencement of that power; for, _there are many Antichrists_; many persons, now, appear in the spirit of that future Antichrist, and deserve his name: _whereby_, indeed, _we know that it is the last hour_: for Christ himself had made the appearance of false Christs and false prophets, that is, of Antichrists, to be one of the signs by which that _hour_ should be distinguished[114].

The meaning of the whole passage, then, is clearly this: “That the appearance of _false Christs_ and _false Prophets_ (of which there were many, according to our Lord’s prediction, in St. John’s time) indicated the arrival of that _hour_, that was to be fatal to the Jewish state: and that they were, at the same time, the types and forerunners of a still more dreadful, power, which should be fully revealed in _the latter times_, in a future period, when that calamity was past.” For the truth of the assertion, That such a power should arise in the Christian church, he appeals to a tradition, then current among the disciples: and his hated name of _Antichrist_ is here applied, by way of anticipation, to the false prophets of that time; as possessing much of his character, and acting with his spirit.

Hence we see the meaning of the word, _Antichrist_; which stands for a person or power, actuated with a spirit opposite to that of Christ. And so indeed the Apostle explains himself, in another place of this very Epistle. For, speaking of certain false teachers, who preached up a doctrine, contrary to that of the Gospel, he adds—“This is that _spirit_ of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world[115].” And I lay the greater stress on this observation, because the etymology of the word, _Antichrist_, makes it capable of two different meanings. For it may either signify one, who _assumes the place and office of Christ_, or one, who _maintains a direct enmity and opposition to him_[116]. But the _latter_, is the sense in which the Apostle useth this term; although it be true that, in the _former_ sense, it very well suits the Bishop of Rome, who calls himself the _Vicar_ of Christ, as well as the successor of St. Peter. Nor can there be any difficulty in fixing the charge of Antichristianism, in the sense of _an enmity and opposition to Christ_, on the Roman Pontif (though I know how absurd the attempt seems to the writers on that side); for, to merit this charge, it is not necessary that he should formally reject Christ, which undoubtedly he does not, but that he should act in defiance to the true genius and character of Christ’s religion: a charge, which may be evidently made good against him.

In short, as the word, _Christ_, is frequently used in the Apostolic writings for the _doctrine_ of Christ; in which sense we are said to _put on Christ_, to _grow in Christ_, to _learn Christ_, and in other instances: So _Antichrist_, in the abstract, may be taken for a doctrine subversive of the Christian; and when applied to a particular man, or body of men, it denotes _one_, who sets himself against the _spirit_ of that doctrine[117].

In this last sense, the word _Antichrist_ is clearly employed by St. John: and from his example, the word grew into general use in the Christian church; and is so to be understood, whenever mention is made of Antichrist by the primitive fathers, or any other ecclesiastical writers.

II. I am now to shew in what manner the prophecies concerning _Antichrist_, or a person or power, so called, and, though variously described, always considered under the idea of an adversary to the true doctrine of Christ, have been construed and applied by many eminent members of the Christian Church, in all ages.

1. When the canon of scripture was formed, and new in the hands of the faithful, the prophecies concerning Antichrist were too remarkable not to take their early attention. They accordingly cite these prophecies in their apologies and commentaries, or refer to them, very frequently. But one thing is singular. Though Antichrist be every where spoken of in the prophecies as a persecuting power, and though the Christian church then was, and so continued to be for near three centuries, in a state of persecution under the Roman emperors, yet this opprobrious name was not usually given to their persecutors. I do not say, that none of the early Christian writers ever applied that character to the Emperors. Some few of them, in a fit of zeal and resentment, did[118]. But the most, and the ablest of the Fathers, were clearly of another opinion.

It may be thought, that they forbore this application of so odious a term, out of respect to the government under which they lived, and from prudential considerations. These motives had, without doubt, their weight with them, and made them more cautious, than they would otherwise have been, in interpreting the prophecies. But, if they had been at liberty to speak out, and declare their full sense, on the subject, it is certain they would not, and could not, consistently with their avowed principles, apply the prophecies concerning Antichrist to the Roman Emperors. For they had learned from tradition, and from the letter of the prophecies, that Antichrist was to be revealed in some distant age; and they even collected from a remarkable passage in one of St. Paul’s Epistles (which will be considered hereafter) that the removal of the Roman empire was to make way for his appearance. Hence, they give it as a reason for their ardent prayers to Heaven for the preservation of the empire, that the dreaded power of Antichrist could not commence, so long as the Imperial sovereignty subsisted. And it is observable that, of those few writers, who were in different sentiments, the greater part conceived the time of his coming to be _remote_; and were even driven to the strange necessity of supposing that Nero, the first persecuting Emperor, was miraculously kept alive, or would be raised up from the dead, in order to be revealed in a future age, as the Antichrist of the prophets, or at least as the _Precursor_ of Antichrist[119].

In short, the idea, which the early Christians, in general, formed of Antichrist, was that of a power, to be revealed in distant times, after the dissolution of the Roman empire; of a power, to arise out of the ruins of that empire. Not to multiply quotations, on a point which admits no doubt, Jerom, the ablest of the ancient Fathers, and the most esteemed, shall speak for the rest. He says expressly, that such was the idea of _all the ecclesiastical writers_, down to his time, as is here represented[120].

Now this circumstance ye will surely think not a little remarkable, that they, who lived under the emperors, and felt the whole weight of their tyrannous persecution, should not apply the prophetic notes and characters of Antichrist, to _them_, if indeed the prophecies had been fairly capable of such application. This, I say, is exceedingly remarkable: for men are but too apt even to wrest the scriptures to a sense, which favours their own cause, or gratifies their passions; and to find a completion of prophecy in events, which fall out in their own days and concern themselves (as we see from so many absurd applications of the Apocalypse, justly objected to certain Protestant writers); though, when such events are past, and impartially considered, no such accomplishment of prophecy can be discerned in them.

When the church of Rome, therefore, now pretends, that Antichrist is to be sought in Imperial and Pagan Rome, ye will naturally ask how it came to pass, that the ancient fathers, who had the best opportunity of seeing the conformity of the prophecies with the transactions of their times, and were so much interested in those transactions, should yet overlook such conformity, if it had been real, and fairly marked out by the prophecies, when interpreters of these days are so quick-sighted? And to this question, no just and satisfactory answer can be given, but that, in the opinion of those fathers, the characters of Antichrist were not sufficiently applicable to the Roman emperors; or, if they were, that certain express clauses in the prophecies themselves forbade that application of them. Either way, their conduct forms a strong presumption, that the Antichrist of the prophets was not, and could not be, the Roman Emperor.

I know indeed, that, when the empire became Christian, and factions sprang up in the church, the name of Antichrist, as a term of reproach, was not unfrequently bestowed on such of the emperors as had made themselves obnoxious to the orthodox party. But this flippancy of language proves nothing but the passion of the men who indulged themselves in it, unless it be, that this term of reproach was thought better suited to an ecclesiastic, than a civil power: for the Emperor, being now the head of the Christian church, his persecutions of the faith were deemed the more _Antichristian_, as they especially disgraced his _religious character_. And how natural this idea was, I mean the idea of _Antichrist_, as intended by the prophets of a _religious_, not civil power, we may learn from the history of the schisms, which afterwards distracted the church under the papacy; when the Antipopes very liberally, and constantly branded each other with the name of _Antichrist_: as if they had found a peculiar aptness in the prophetic language to express ecclesiastical tyranny and usurpation.

But, whatever use we may make of these facts, it is clear, on all hands, that the Roman Emperor, _as such_, was thought to have no concern in the predictions concerning Antichrist; at least, that the more intelligent Christian writers of the three first centuries had no idea of his having any such concern in them: while, yet, they held very unanimously, that some future power was to arise in the church, in which those predictions would be completed.

III. This, in general, was the state of the controversy concerning Antichrist, till the down-fall of the Western empire; when the Bishop of Rome reared his head, and by degrees found means, amidst the ruins of that mighty power, to advance himself into the sovereignty of Rome, and, at length, of the Christian world: fixing his residence in the very seat and throne of the Cæsars. It remains to see, in what light the reign of Antichrist was, thenceforth, considered by many eminent members of that church, which now called itself, and was, in a manner, _universal_. In other words, we are to inquire, now that the imperial power, which the fathers would not acknowledge to be Antichristian, had deserted Rome, whether the papal power, which took its place on _the seven hills_, did not, in the opinion of sober men, fill up all the measures of the prophetic characters, and perfectly correspond to that idea.

1. So early, as about the close of the sixth century, Gregory the first, or, the _Great_, as he is usually called, the most revered, and in some respects not undeservedly so, of all the Roman pontifs, in a famous dispute with the Bishop of Constantinople, who had taken to himself the title of _Oecumenical_, or Universal Bishop, objects to him, the arrogance and presumption of this claim, and treats him, on that account, as the fore-runner, at least, of Antichrist. His words are remarkable enough to be here quoted. _I affirm it confidently_, says He, _that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop, or is desirous to be so called, demonstrates himself, by this pride and elation of heart, to be the fore-runner of Antichrist_[121]. And, again, _From this presumption of his_ [in taking the name of Universal Bishop] _what else can be collected, but that the times of Antichrist are now at hand_[122]?

It is to be observed of this Gregory, that he disclaimed, for himself, the title of Universal Bishop, as well as refused it to his aspiring brother of Constantinople. How consistently he did this, when at the same time, he exercised an authority, which can only belong to that exalted character, it is not my business to inquire. Perhaps, he did not advert to the consequence of his own actions: perhaps, like an able man, he meant to secure the thing, without troubling himself about the name: perhaps, he was jealous of a rival to this claim of catholic authority, and would not permit the Bishop of Constantinople to decorate himself with a title, which was likely to be favourable to the pretensions of that see, and injurious to his own. Whatever the reasons of his conduct were, the _fact_ is, as I here represent it; and clearly shews that, in the judgment of this renowned Roman Bishop, Antichrist had not yet been revealed in the person of the Roman Emperor; and if ever he were to be revealed, that not a civil, but ecclesiastical character, agreed best with the prophetic descriptions of him[123].

2. Pope Boniface III. had not, it seems, the scruples, whatever they were, of his predecessor, Gregory. He readily accepted, or rather importunately begged, this proud title of _Oecumenical Bishop_, from the Emperor, Phocas; and transmitted it to all his successors. And now, it might be expected, that the Bishop of Rome would be Antichrist, in his turn. But, such was the fortune of that see, or the devotion of the faithful to it, that this charge was not presently brought against him: as if the spirit of dominion, which had so long possessed that city, were a thing of course, and could not misbecome the Bishop of Rome, though it looked so _Antichristian_ in him of Constantinople.

Other reasons concurred to save the honour of the papal chair. Its authority grew, every day, more absolute: and the tradition of the church (which had hitherto been the chief support of the doctrine concerning Antichrist) gradually sunk under the apprehension of that power, to which alone it could, with any apparent propriety, be applied: while the ignorance of the times became such, that, except perhaps in the minds of some few retainers to the see of Rome, there was scarce light enough left in the Christian world to point out the meaning of the prophecies; if its gross superstition would have otherwise permitted the application of them to the sacred person of the Pope.

3. Under the cover of all these advantages, _the Man of Sin_ had a convenient time to display himself, and to grow up into that full size and stature, in which he could no longer be overlooked, or mistaken, by those who had any knowledge of the prophecies, or skill in applying them. Accordingly we find that at the synod of Rheims, held in the Xth century[124], Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans, appealed to the whole council, whether the Bishop of Rome were not the Antichrist of the prophets; _sitting in the temple of God_; and perfectly corresponding to the marks, which St. Paul had given of him. In particular, speaking of John the XVth, who then governed the church of Rome, he apostrophized the assembly in these words—“What think ye, reverend Fathers, of this man, seated on a lofty throne, and shining in purple and gold? Whom do ye account him to be? Surely, if destitute of charity, and puffed up with the pride of science only, He is ANTICHRIST, _sitting in the temple of God, and shewing himself that he is God_[125].”

4. In the former part of the XIth century, Berengarius, a man of principal note in those days, and distinguished by his free writings concerning the Eucharist, went so far as to call the church of Rome, _the seat of Satan_ (which is but another apocalyptic name of Antichrist); and to know from what source he derived this language, we need only reflect, that, in the catalogue of his works, we find a treatise written by him expressly on the book of Revelations[126].

As this century advanced, the papal power rose to its height. And all the characters of Antichrist glared so strongly in the person of Hildebrand, who took the name of Gregory VIIth, that the Romish historian, Joannes Aventinus, speaks of it as a point, _in which the generality of fair, candid, and ingenuous writers, were agreed, That_ THEN _began the empire of Antichrist_[127].

5. Pascal II, who had been brought up at the feet of Hildebrand, and sate upon the papal throne in the beginning of the XIIth century, was treated with as little ceremony, as his master had been; particularly, by Fluentius, Bishop of Florence, and by the whole church of Liege[128].

St. Bernard, too, the most eminent person of that age, was so struck with the marks of Antichristianism in the church of Rome (to which, however, in other respects, he was enough devoted) that he employed all the thunder of his rhetoric (in which faculty he excelled) against its corruptions; exclaiming, _that the ministers of Christ were become the servants of Antichrist; and that the beast of the Apocalypse had seated himself in the chair of St. Peter_[129].

But this charge was now so general, and sounded so high, that it reached the ears of _others_, besides prelates, and churchmen. Historians relate, that it made an impression on our military king, Richard I.; who, being at Messina in Sicily, in his way to the Holy Land, and hearing much of the learned Abbot Joachim of Calabria, (a man, famous in those times for his warm invectives against the Roman hierarchy;) had the curiosity to take a lecture from him on this subject. His text was, _Antichrist_, and the _Apocalypse_; which he explained in so pointed and forcible a manner, as was much to the satisfaction, we are told, of his royal auditor[130].

6. The first appearance of the people, called Waldenses or Albigenses, was in this age; but, in the next, the XIIIth century, they prevailed to that degree, that Crusades and Inquisitions were thought little enough to be employed against them. We may know what the guilt of this people was, when we understand from their books, and from the testimony of the great historian, Thuanus, that a leading principle of their heresy was, To treat the Pope as _Antichrist_; and the church of Rome, as _Babylon_; on the authority of the prophecies contained in the Revelation[131].

Other[132] testimonies occur in the history of this age. But I must not omit that of our famous historian, Matthew Paris; who hath taken care to inform us, that his contemporary, Robert Grostête, Bishop of Lincoln, the most considerable of all the English bishops, and equally renowned for his affection to civil and religious liberty, was so much in earnest in fixing this charge on the see of Rome, that, as it had been the common theme of his meditations during life, so it occupied his dying moments; the _Pope_, and _Antichrist_, being, as he tells us, among the last words of this zealous prelate[133].

7. The XIVth century affords many authorities in point; among which the immortal names of Dante[134] and Petrarch[135] are commonly cited. But the example of our Wicklif, who adorned that age, is most to our purpose, and may excuse the mention of any other. This extraordinary man saw far into all the abuses of his time: but he had nothing more at heart, than to expose the _Antichristianism_ of the Roman Pontif[136].

8. Still, as the times grew more enlightened, the controversy concerning Antichrist became more general and important. The writings of Wicklif had great effects both at home, and abroad; and, with other causes, contributed very much to the cultivation of free enquiry, and to the improvement of all useful knowledge, in the XVth century. The church of Rome was pushed vigorously on all sides; and, in her turn, omitted no means of self-defence. That the _worst_ were not scrupled, may be seen by what passed in England at that time, as well as by the sanguinary and faithless proceedings at the council of Constance. Lord Cobham, and the two Bohemian martyrs, were committed to the flames, for nothing so much, as for asserting the impious doctrine, ‘That the Pope was Antichrist.’

9. We now enter on the XVIth century; distinguished in the annals of mankind by that great event, The Reformation of long oppressed and much adulterated religion. The Christian world had slumbered in its chains, for full ten ages. But Liberty came at last—

_Libertas, quæ sera tamen respexit_ INERTEM.

This important work was begun, and prosecuted, on the common principle, That the bishop of Rome was Antichrist: and the great separation from the church of Rome, was every where justified on the idea, That Rome was the Babylon of the Revelation; and that Christians were bound by an express command in those prophecies, to _come out of her_ communion.

Leo X. was thunder-struck with this cry, which resounded on all sides; and, in the last Lateran council, gave it in charge to all preachers, that none of them should presume to call the Pope, Antichrist, or to treat this obnoxious subject in their discourses to the people[137]. But his edict came too late. The notion had taken deep root in the minds of men; and the name of Antichrist, as applied to the Pope, was current in all quarters.

10. From this time to the present, _the charge of Antichristianism_ against the church of Rome is to be regarded, not as the language of private men, or particular synods; but as the common voice of the whole Protestant world: so that it will be needless to bring down the history of it any lower.

THIS DEDUCTION, though made with all possible brevity, hath held us so long, that I have but time for one or two short reflexions upon it.

1. _First_, It may seem probable from the general prevalence of this opinion, in all the periods of the Christian church, that it must needs have some solid ground in the scriptural prophecies: it not being otherwise conceivable, that it should spread so far, and continue so long; or that the more enlightened, as well as barbarous ages should concur in the profession of it.

2. _Secondly_, from the catalogue of illustrious names, here produced, and from the singular stress, which all Protestant churches to this day have ever laid on this principle, we may see the importance of the general question. The papal divines have an evident reason for treating it with contempt. The men of thought and inquiry, who speculate within the Roman communion, may be restrained by considerations of fear or decency, from joining[138] in this invidious charge against the head of their church. But for any, that profess Christianity, and call themselves Protestants, to make light of inquiries into the prophecies concerning Antichrist, and to manifest a scorn of all attempts to apply them in the way, in which they have so generally, and with such effect been applied, is a sort of conduct, which will not so readily find an excuse, much less a justification.

3. _Lastly_, whatever becomes of the _truth_, or _importance_ of the doctrine, the _antiquity_ of it is not to be disputed. For we are authorised to affirm, on the most certain grounds of history, that a Roman power, commonly called Antichrist, was expected to arise in _the latter times_, by the primitive Christians; and that the Imperial, was not deemed to be that power, so long as it subsisted. It is, further, unquestionable that not the Emperor, but the Bishop or Church of Rome, was afterwards thought entitled to the name of Antichrist by many persons of that communion, for several successive centuries, previous to the æra of the Reformation.

These facts should abate the wonder, at least, which some express at hearing the names of the _Pope_ and _Antichrist_ pronounced together. They must surely convince every man, that this language, whatever foundation it may, or may not have, in the prophecies, is not taken up without precedents and authorities; and that the notion, conveyed by it, is not a conceit of yesterday, which sprung out of recent prejudices, and novel interpretations. This, I say, is a conclusion which every man must draw from the premises, laid down in this discourse: and this, for the present, is the main use I would request you to make of those premises.

SERMON VIII.

PREJUDICES AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF ANTICHRIST.

1 EP. JOHN ii. 18.

—_Ye have heared that Antichrist shall come_—

One of the principal prejudices against the doctrine of Antichrist, as understood and applied by Protestant divines, arises out of a circumstance, which was just touched in the close of my last discourse, and is of importance enough to be now resumed and more particularly considered.

I. It is well known that, when the Reformation was set on foot in the sixteenth century, this great work was every where justified and conducted on the general principle, “That the Pope, or at least the church of Rome, was Antichrist.”

“Now men of sense, who have looked no farther into the subject, and yet remember, as they easily may, the bitterness, the policy, the fraud, too commonly observable in the conduct of religious (as of other) parties, easily fall into the suspicion, That this cry of Antichrist was only an artifice of the time, or at least an extravagance of it; when the minds of men were intensely heated against each other, and when of course no arms would be refused, that might serve to annoy or distress the enemy.

In these circumstances, it was natural enough, it will be said, for angry men to _see_ that in the prophecies which was not contained in them; or for designing men to _feign_ that which they did not see; in order the more effectually to carry on the cause in which they had embarked, and to seduce the unwary multitude into their quarrel. In short, the passions of the Reformed, it is readily presumed, had, some way or other, conjured up this spectre of Antichrist, as a convenient engine, by which they might either gratify their own spleen, or excite that of the people; the prophecies all the while being no further concerned in the question, than as they were wrested for these purposes (as they frequently have been, in like cases) from their true and proper meaning.”

To remove this capital prejudice (which, more than any other, hath, perhaps, diverted serious men from giving a due attention to this argument) was the main purpose of the preceding discourse; in which it was clearly shewn from historical testimony, that the question concerning Antichrist had its rise in the earliest times; that the prophecies concerning Antichrist, though imperfectly enough understood, and, it may be, passionately applied, had yet, been considered, very generally, as referring to _some_ corrupt Christian and even ecclesiastical person or power; and that many eminent members of the Christian church had even applied those prophecies to the _same_ person or power, to which Protestants now apply them, and for the _same_ end, which Protestants have in view, when they apply them to such person or power, for many successive centuries, before the Reformation began. From all which it is undeniable, that the Reformers did not innovate in the interpretation of the prophecies concerning Antichrist; and that their application of them to the see of Rome, was not a contrivance, which sprung out of the passionate resentments, or interested policies of that time.

It is true indeed (for the truth should not, and needs not be concealed) that the Reformers were forward enough to lay hold on this received sense of the prophecies, and to make their utmost advantage of it; the account of which matter is, briefly, this: The Christian church had now for many ages been held together in a close dependence on the chair of St. Peter; and to secure and perpetuate that dependence, was the principal object and concern of the papal court. Various means were employed for this purpose; but the most effectual was thought to be, to inculcate in the strongest terms on the minds of Christians the absolute necessity of communicating with the Bishop of Rome, as the centre of unity, and, by divine appointment, the supreme visible head of the Christian world. Hence, to renounce in any degree the authority and jurisdiction of Rome, was deemed the most inexpiable of all sins. The name of SCHISM was fastened upon it; a name, which was sounded higher than that of Heresy itself, as implying in it the accumulated guilt of Apostacy, and Infidelity. The way of heaven was shut against all offenders of this sort; and, to make their condition as miserable, as it was hopeless, all the engines of persecution, such as racks, fires, gibbets, inquisitions, and even Crusades, had been employed against them: as was seen in the case of the Albigenses and others, who, at different times, had attempted to withdraw themselves from the papal dominion.