_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.