argue from their suspicions only, it may not be easy to give them an
answer to their satisfaction. Otherwise, one might reply,
_First_, That the question is not, what use has been, or may be, made
of this doctrine concerning Antichrist; but whether there be reason to
believe that such doctrine is really contained in sacred scripture. If
there be, it will become us to treat it with respect, how much soever
it may have been misapplied, or perverted.
In the _next place_, one might observe that no man, who understood
the state of this controversy, ever applied the prophecies concerning
Antichrist to the _person_ of the Pope, but in general to the church of
Rome, or rather to the Antichristian spirit, by which it is governed;
or, if to the _Pope_, to him only as representing that society, of
which he is the head; and so far only, as he acted in the spirit of it.
And there is nothing strange or unusual in this use of the term. When
Hobbes wrote his famous book, called LEVIATHAN (a word, now at least,
of almost as ill sound, as Antichrist itself) no man supposes, that
he meant to apply this character, exclusively, to the person of any
prince, then living; but, in general, to _civil government_, according
to the ideas he had formed of it. And this way of speaking, as I have
before observed, is especially familiar to the sacred writers. Many
of the Popes are said to have been, and, for any thing I know, _may_
have been, _Saints_, in their private morals: so that when we apply
the term, Antichrist, to them, we do not mean to stigmatize their
_persons_, but merely to express the sense which the prophecies lead
us to entertain of the communion, over which they preside; though
they may not exemplify in their own conduct, or not in any remarkable
degree, the avowed principles of that communion.
Conceive, therefore, with more respect of Protestant divines, when they
explain and vindicate the prophecies concerning Antichrist, than to
suppose, that they indulge in themselves, or would encourage in others,
_a low spite against the person of the Roman Pontif_.
_Thirdly_, It is to be observed, that, although this prophetic language
may tend to confirm Protestants _in a religious, or_, if you will,
_politic aversion to the church of Rome_; yet it is not therefore to
be forborn, if the scriptures do, indeed, authorize the use of it;
nor is there any hurt done, if the principles of that church be not
misrepresented; for then, such aversion becomes the wisdom and the
duty of all Christians. Besides, this aversion proceeds no farther
in well-informed Protestants, than to keep them at distance from the
Romish communion, and to admonish others of their obligation to forsake
it. And, if the members, above all, if the rulers, of that communion
would restrain _their_ zeal within the same bounds (though they would
not, we say, be equally justified in this zeal) neither public peace,
nor Christian charity, would suffer by it.
_Lastly_, it should be remembered, That, when the prophecies foretell
the downfall of Antichrist, and even go so far as to point out to us
the princes of that communion, as the destined instruments of such
catastrophe; yet neither is hereby any duty imposed on those princes
to make war upon the Pope, nor any encouragement given to Protestants
themselves to concur in any such measures. For the prophets simply
predict an _event_; and do not deliver in their prediction, or propose
to deliver, _rules_ for our conduct. Our Saviour himself, speaking
by the spirit, and in the language of prophecy, said—_I come not to
send peace on earth, but a sword_. But will any man suppose that this
prediction justifies, or was meant in any degree to justify, that state
of things, which it describes, and which the author of it foresaw
would too certainly come to pass? Nor think, that the event predicted,
I mean, _the fall of Antichrist_, will not take place, unless our
invectives, or hostile attempts, make way for it. If the prediction be
divine, there is ONE, who will see that it be accomplished. Princes and
States may have nothing less in view than to fulfill the prophecies
of sacred Scripture: yet, when the appointed time is come, they will
certainly fulfill them, though they never thought _of coming in aid
of the prophecies_—though we should not encourage them in any such
presumptuous design—nay, though we should do our utmost, as it is our
duty to do, to restrain vindictive and ill-advised men from turning
their arms even against Antichrist himself, for the sake of religion.
This topic, I know, is much laboured by the advocates of the papal
cause, in order to throw disgrace on Protestant writers, whom they
consider as so many incendiaries, wickedly attempting to spread the
flames of war through Christian societies. There might be a time
when, in the case of some few men, transported by passion, because
outrageously oppressed, there was, perhaps, some colour for this
charge. But to persist in it, as they still do, only shews that they
neither conceive with due reverence of divine prophecy, nor do justice
to that spirit of toleration by which the Protestant churches, at least
of our days, are so eminently distinguished.
III. “A _third_ prejudice, which operates in the minds of many persons
against the principle under consideration, arises from the disagreeing
opinions of learned men concerning the sense and application of the
prophecies; while not only the papal Divines, but many writers of note
even among ourselves, have strenuously maintained that the church of
Rome is no way concerned in the predictions concerning Antichrist.”
To this prejudice, I observe,
1. That arguments from authority, in all cases where reason and good
sense must finally decide, are very little to be regarded. Shew me the
question in religion, or even in common morals, about which learned men
have not disagreed; nay, shew me a single text of scripture, though
ever so plain and precise, which the perverseness or ingenuity of
interpreters has not drawn into different, and often contrary meanings.
What then shall we conclude? That there is no truth in religion,
no certainty in morals, no authority in sacred scripture? If such
conclusions, as these, be carried to their utmost length, in what else
can they terminate, but absolute universal scepticism?
2. I observe that this authority, after all, whatever weight we may,
in the general, suppose it to have, is, in the present case, no great
matter; for it is, in effect, but the authority of ONE man, whose
eminent worth, however, and lustre of reputation, made it current with
some others.
The character of HUGO GROTIUS is well known. He is justly esteemed
among the ablest and most learned men of an age, that abounded
in ability and learning. Besides his other shining talents, his
acquaintance with history was extensive; and his knowledge of
scripture, profound. And yet, with two such requisites for unlocking
the true sense of the prophetic writings, this excellent man undertook
to prove in form, _That the Pope was not Antichrist_.
The account of this mischance, is as extraordinary, as the mischance
itself. The moral qualities of Grotius were still more admirable, than
his intellectual: and in these qualities, we shall find the true spring
of his unhappy and misapplied pains on the subject before us.
He was in his own nature just, candid, benevolent, to a supreme degree;
and the experience of an active turbulent life had but fortified him
the more in a love of these pacific virtues. He was, on principle, a
sincere and zealous Christian; and consequently impressed with a due
sense of that exalted charity, which is the characteristic of that
religion: but he had seen and felt much of the mischiefs, which proceed
from theological quarrels: and thus every thing concurred to make him a
friend to peace, and, above all, to peace among Christians.
An union of the Catholic and Protestant churches seemed necessary
to this end: and the apparent candour, whether real or affected,
of some learned persons, whom he had long known and valued in the
church of Rome, drew him into the belief, that such a project was not
impracticable. Henceforth, it became the ruling object of his life;
and, permitting himself too easily to conclude, that the Protestant
doctrine of Antichrist was the sole, or principal obstruction to the
union desired, he bent all the efforts of his wit and learning to
discredit and overthrow that doctrine.
Thus, was this virtuous man betrayed by the wisdom and equity of his
own character; and I know not if the observation of the moral poet can
be so justly applied to any other—
Insani sapiens nomen ferat, æquus iniqui,
Ultrà quàm satis est, virtutem si petat ipsam[144].
The issue of his general scheme was what might easily be foreseen: and
of his _arguments_, I shall only say thus much, That the Romish writers
themselves, for whose use they might seem to be invented, though they
continue to object his name to us, are too wise to venture the stress
of their cause upon them.
To conclude this head of authority, let me just observe,
3. In the last place, that, if any regard be due to it, the advantage
will clearly be on our side. For, though the name of Grotius made
an impression on some Protestant interpreters of scripture, not
inconsiderable for their parts and learning, yet, when the grounds of
his opinion came to be examined, the most and the ablest of them have
generally declared against him: and among these, let it be no offence
to the manes of this great[145] man, if we particularly mention TWO,
and prefer even to his authority that of Newton and Clarke; the one,
the ablest philosopher, and the other, the coolest and most rational
divine, that any age has produced.
IV. “Another, and _fourth_ prejudice may have been entertained on this
subject from observing that many curious persons, who have employed
themselves much and long in the study of the prophecies, especially of
those concerning Antichrist, have been led (on their authority, as they
pretend) to fix the time and other circumstances of great events, which
yet have not fallen out agreeable to their expectations. Whence it is
inferred, that no solid information can be derived from the prophecies,
and that all our reasonings upon them are no better than fancy and
conjecture.”
Now, though the indiscretion of these curious persons, who would needs
prophecy when their business was only to interpret[146], be injurious
enough to their own character, I do not see how it affects that of
the prophets; unless whatever may be abused (as every thing may) be
answerable for the abuses made of it. But to reply more directly to
this charge.
The ill success of men in explaining prophecies of events, not yet come
to pass, can in no degree discredit those prophecies, unless it be
essential to this sort of revelation to be so clearly proposed, as that
it may and must be perfectly understood, before those events happen;
the contrary of which I have already shewn, in a preceding discourse.
The very idea of prophecy is that of _a light shining in a dark
place_: and a place is not _dark_, if we have light enough to discern
distinctly and fully every remote corner of it. But the thing speaks
itself. For to what end is the prediction delivered in obscure and
enigmatic terms, if the purpose of the inspirer was that the subject
of the prediction should be immediately, and in all its circumstances,
precisely apprehended? Why, then, is any distinction made between
Prophecy, and History? The mode of writing clearly demonstrates, that
something, for a time at least, was meant to be concealed from us: and
then, if men will attempt, out of season, to penetrate this mystery,
what wonder if mistake be the fruit of their presumption?
Again: the _declared_ end of prophecy is, not that we may be enabled
by it to foresee things before they come to pass, but _when_ they
come to pass, that we may acknowledge the divine author of the
prophecy[147]. What dishonour, then, can it be to the prophet, that he
is not perfectly understood, till we be expected to make use of his
information? Nay, in the case before us, it would dishonour him, if
he was. For, of the prophecies concerning Antichrist we are expressly
told, that they are _shut up and sealed, till the time of the end_;
that is, till Time brings the key along with him. So that, if men
could open them, by their own wit and sagacity only, they would give
the lye to the prophet. And thus we see, that the very mistakes of
interpreters attempting prematurely to unfold the _sealed_ prophecies
concerning Antichrist, far from subverting, support the credit of
those prophecies[148].
But I have something more to say on this subject. Though we cannot see
every thing in the prophecies, which we are impatient to see, it is
not to be supposed that we can see nothing in them. If this were the
case, we should scarce regard them as prophecies at all; at least, we
should hardly be prevailed upon to read and consider them. For, it is
on the supposition that some _light_ is communicated to us, that we are
disposed, as well as required, to _take heed to it_. In short, if we
saw nothing, we should expect nothing: such prophecies would not engage
our curiosity, or so much as take our attention. In one word, they
would be utterly lost upon us.
This seems to have been, in some measure, the case with regard to this
very book of the _Revelations_. The early Christians saw so little
in this prophecy, that they were led by degrees to neglect the study
of it. Otherwise, the little they did see, might have given them a
glimpse, at least, of many things, that intimately concerned both their
faith and conduct.
It being then necessary, as I said, that prophecy should, from the
first, convey some light to us, and time having now very much increased
that light, it follows, that men may excuseably employ themselves
in studying and contemplating even unfulfilled prophecies. They may
conjecture modestly of points which time has not yet revealed: but they
should, in no case, pronounce confidently, or decide dogmatically upon
them.
It seems therefore to be going too far, to pass an indiscriminate
censure on all those, who have proposed their thoughts on the sense
of prophecies, not yet completed, though it be ever so clear that a
wrong construction has been made of them. Nay, it is worth considering
whether they may not even have conjectured right, when they have
been thought to mistake the most widely. I say this, chiefly, with
regard to the _time_, which some writers have beforehand assigned for
the accomplishment of certain prophecies, and that, on principles
apparently contained in those prophecies; but so unhappily, as to draw
much scorn and ridicule upon themselves.
I explain myself by a famous instance. Nothing has been more censured
in Protestant divines, than their temerity in fixing _the fall
of Antichrist_; though there are certain data in the prophecies,
from which very probable conclusions on that subject may be drawn.
Experience, it is said, contradicts their calculation. But it is not
considered, that the fall of Antichrist, is not _a single event_,
to happen all at once; but _a state of things_, to continue through
a long tract of time, and to be gradually accomplished. Hence, the
interpretation of the prophecy might be rightly formed, though the
expectations of most men are disappointed.
It is visible, I suppose, that the papal power (if we agree to call
that, _Antichrist_) is now on the decline; whensoever that declension
began, or how long soever it may be, before it will be finished. And
therefore interpreters may have aimed right, though they seemed to
others, and perhaps to themselves, to be mistaken.
Suppose, the ruin of the Western Empire had been the subject of a
prediction, and some had collected, beforehand, from the terms of
the prophecy, that it would happen at a _particular_ time; when yet
nothing more, in fact, came to pass, than _the first irruption of
the barbarous nations_. Would it be certain that this collection was
groundless and ill made, because the empire subsisted in a good degree
of vigour for some centuries after? Might it not be said, that the
empire _was falling_[149] from that æra, or perhaps before; though, in
the event, it _fell_ not, till its sovereignty was shaken by the rude
hands of Attila, or rather, till it was laid flat by the well-directed
force of Theodoric?
But we have an instance in point, recorded in sacred scripture. It had
been gathered from the old prophecies[150], that, _in the last times_,
(that is, when the Messiah was come) _a new earth and new heavens
should be created_. The style is symbolical; but the meaning is, and
was so understood to be, that a new Law should be given to mankind and
prevail over the whole world. This Law was accordingly promulged and
began to prevail in the days of the Apostles. Yet there were some who
said, _Where is the promise of his coming? for, since the fathers fell
asleep, all things continue, as they were from the creation of the
world._ It was taken for granted, we see, that this great and glorious
work, equivalent to the production of a new world, would take place
suddenly and at once; which not being the case, it seemed to follow,
that the prophecies were false, or at least ill understood: when yet,
surely, they were then fulfilling under the eyes of these _scoffers_.
It will be considered, how far these hints may go towards rescuing
some respectable interpreters (for I speak only of such) from
that contempt, which has fallen upon them, and, from them, on the
prophecies themselves, for some hazardous conclusions, or, (if you
will) predictions, formed and given out by them, concerning the reign
and fall of Antichrist. My meaning, however, is not to make myself
responsible for these conclusions. They may not be rightly drawn
from the premises, laid down; or the premises may be such, that the
precise date of those transactions cannot be determined from them, at
least, not, till the scene of prophecy be closed, or, in the prophetic
language, _till the mystery of God be finished_[151]. In the mean
time, it is not clear and undeniable that there is no ground at all
for such conjectures: or, if it were, it would only follow that they,
who made them, had been rash and indiscreet in commenting too minutely
and confidently on prophecies unfulfilled; and it would be weak, as we
have seen, to contract a prejudice against the subject itself from the
mistakes of such commentators.
V. After all, the main and master prejudice, I doubt, is, that levity
of mind which disposes too many to take their notions on this, and
other subjects of moment, from certain polite and popular, it may be,
but frivolous and libertine writers: men, who have no religion, or not
enough to venerate the prophetic scriptures; who have no knowledge, or
certainly not enough to understand them.
But with such cavillers, as these, I have no concern; this Lecture,
and the subject of it, being addressed to men of another character,
to fair, candid, sober, and enlightened inquirers, only: For so
the inspired person, who first announced these wonders concerning
Antichrist, to mankind, expressly declares, or rather prophesies—_None
of the wicked shall understand: but_ THE WISE _shall understand_[152].
SERMON IX.
THE PROPHETIC STYLE CONSIDERED.
EZEKIEL xx. 49.
—_They say of me, Doth he not speak Parables?_
In recounting the various prejudices, which have diverted many persons
from giving a due attention to the prophecies concerning Antichrist, I
may be thought to have overlooked ONE of the most considerable; which
ariseth from _the peculiar style, in which they are delivered_. But
this being a subject of larger compass, and nicer inquiry, than the
rest, (in which, too, the credit of all the prophetic scriptures, as
well as those respecting Antichrist, is concerned) I have purposely
reserved it for a distinct and separate examination.
WITHOUT DOUBT, a plain man, brought up in our customs and notions, and
unacquainted with theological studies, when he first turns himself
to the contemplation of the Jewish and Christian prophecies, will be
surprised, perhaps disgusted, to find, that he understands little, or
nothing of them. His _modesty_ may incline him to think, that such
writings are too mysterious for his comprehension: or, his _laziness
and presumption_ may dispose him to reject them, at once, as perfectly
unintelligible; to consider the language of them, as a jargon, to which
no ideas are annexed; or, at least, as a kind of cypher, of so wild and
fanatical a texture, that no clear and certain construction can be made
of it.
Now, this prejudice, whichever way it points, will be obviated, if it
can be shewn,
1. That the prophetic style was of common and approved use, in the
times when the prophecies were delivered, and among the people to whom
they were addressed.
And
2. That this style, how dark or fanciful soever it may appear, is yet
_reducible to rule_; that is, is constructed on such principles, as
make it the subject of just criticism and reasonable interpretation;
and, in particular, to us, at this day.
For a language is not _fanatical_, that is authorised by general
practice; nor can it be deemed _unintelligible_, when it is capable of
having its meaning ascertained.
I. The proof of these two points will most conveniently be given
together, in a deduction of the causes, which produced the character of
the prophetic style.
That character, I believe, is truly given by those who affirm, That
the style of the prophets was only the poetical, and highly figurative
style of the Eastern nations. But if you go farther and ask, How it
came to pass, that the oriental poetry was so much more figurative
than ours, it may not be enough to say, as many others have done, that
this difference of character was owing to the influence of the sun,
and to the superior heat and fervour, which it gave to an eastern
imagination. For I know not whether there be reason to think, that the
sun hath any such effect on the powers of the mind; or that the fancies
of men are apter to catch, and blaze out in metaphor, within a warm
climate, than a cold one: a figurative cast of style being observable
in the native poetry of all countries; and that, so far as appears from
history and experience, in a pretty equal degree.
Besides, if the fact were allowed, the answer would scarce be
sufficient. For, as we shall presently see, the symbolic language of
Prophecy, is too consistent and uniform, hath too much of art and
method in it, to be derived from the casual flights and sallies of
the imagination _only_, how powerfully soever you suppose it to have
operated in the prophets.
We then must go much deeper for a true account of the emblematic and
highly coloured expression, which glares so strongly in the prophetic
scriptures: and we shall find it, partly, in the nature of the human
mind; and, partly, in the genius, indeed, of the oriental nations, and
especially of the Jews, but as fashioned, not by the influence of their
climate, but by the modes of their learning and institution.
I must be as brief as possible, on a subject, which many learned
writers[153] have largely and fully discussed; and, as the reflexions
I have to offer to you upon it, are chiefly taken from them, I may the
rather bespeak your attention to what follows.
1. First, then, let it be observed, that the original language of all
nations is extremely imperfect. Their stock of words being small, they
explain themselves very much by _signs_, or representative actions:
and their conceptions, in that early state of society, being gross and
rude, the few words they have, are replete with material images, and
so are what we call highly metaphorical; and this, not from choice
or design, or even from any extraordinary warmth of fancy, but of
necessity, and from the very nature of things.