the symbolic style is, in such writings as the prophetic. So that if
any be disposed, in our days, to take up the complaint of the text,
and to up-braid the prophets by asking, _Do they not speak Parables?_
We may now take courage to answer, Yes: but _parables_, which, as
dark as they are accounted to be, may be well understood; and, what
is more, _parables_, which are so expressed, as to carry an evidence
in themselves that they _are_ what they assume to be, of divine
inspiration.
SERMON X.
THE STYLE AND METHOD OF THE APOCALYPSE.
EZEKIEL xx. 49.
—_They say of me, Doth he not speak Parables?_
All the prophecies of the Old and New Testament are written in
_parables_; that is, in highly figurative terms; which yet, on
examination, have appeared to be explicable on certain fixed and
rational grounds of criticism.
So far, therefore, as any prejudice may have been entertained against
the prophecies concerning Antichrist, as if the language of them were
too abstruse or fanciful to be understood, enough hath been already
said to shew, that it is not well founded.
It must, however, be confessed, that the book of _Revelations_[163],
which contains the most, and the chief prophecies on the subject of
Antichrist, is of a deeper and more mysterious contrivance, than any
other of the prophetic writings. Whence, our next step, in this
inquiry, must be, To trace the CAUSES of that peculiar obscurity; and
to suggest, as we go along, the MEANS, by which it hath been, or may
be, removed.
The _causes_, are to be sought in the STYLE, and the METHOD, of
that book. I say nothing of the _subject_; for, though the _things
predicted_ may darken a prophecy, unfulfilled, the _event_ will shew
what they are; and it is not necessary, that we should anxiously
inquire into the meaning of a prophecy, till it be accomplished.
I. _First_, then, the STYLE of the Revelations (for I mean not to
consider it, with regard to the Greek tongue, in which it is composed,
or, to the Hebrew idiom, with which it is coloured) The _style_, I
say, being symbolical, like that of the other prophecies, must, in
general, be explained on the same principles, that is, must be equally
intelligible, in both. Yet, if we attend nicely to the style of
this prophecy, some difference will be found, in _the choice of the
symbols_, and in _the continuity of the symbolic form_.
1. To explain my meaning, on the first article, I must observe, That,
though the prophetic style abounds in _hieroglyphic_ symbols, properly
so called, yet the Israelites, when they adopted that style, did not
confine themselves to the old Egyptian stock of symbols; but, working
on the same ground of analogy, superadded many others, which their
own circumstances and observations suggested to them. Their divine
ritual, their civil customs, their marvellous history, and even the
face and aspect of their country, afforded infinite materials for the
construction of fresh symbols: and these, when they came into common
use, their prophets freely and largely employed. Thus, _incense_, from
the religious use of it in the Mosaical service, denotes _prayer_, or
_mental adoration_[164]—_to tread a wine-press_, from their custom
of pressing grapes, signifies _destruction, attended with great
slaughter_[165]—_to give water in the wilderness_, in allusion to the
miraculous supply of that element, during the passage of the Israelites
through the wilderness to the holy land, is the emblem of _unexpected
relief in distress_[166];—and, to mention no more, a _forest_, such as
Lebanon, abounding in lofty cedars, represents a _great city, with its
flourishing ranks of inhabitants_[167]; just as, a _mountain_, from
the situation of the Jewish temple on mount Moria, is made to stand for
the _Christian Church_[168].
Now, though the symbols of this class be occasionally dispersed through
the old prophets, yet they are more frequent, and much thicker sown,
in the Revelations: so that to a reader, not well versed in the Jewish
story and customs, this difference may add something to the obscurity
of the book.
If you ask the _reason_ of this difference, it is plainly this. The
scene of the apocalyptic visions is laid, not only in Judæa, but in
the temple at Jerusalem; whence the imagery is, of course, taken. It
was natural for the writer to draw his allusions from Jewish objects,
and especially from the ceremonial of the temple-service. Besides,
the declared scope of the prophecy being to predict the fortunes of
the Christian church, what so proper as to do this under the cover
of Jewish ideas; the law itself, as we have before seen, and as St.
Paul expressly tells us, having been so contrived, as to present the
_shadow_ of that future dispensation?
This then (and for the reason assigned) is ONE distinguishing character
of the Apocalyptic style. But the difficulty of interpretation, arising
from it, cannot be considerable; or, if it be, may be overcome by an
obvious method, by a careful study of the Jewish history and law.
2. The OTHER mark of distinction, which I observed in the style of
this book, is the _continuity_ of the symbolic manner. Parables are
frequent, indeed, in the old prophets, but interspersed with many
passages of history, and have very often their explanation annexed.
This great parable of St. John is, throughout, carried on in its own
proper form, without any such interruption, and, except in _one_
instance[169], without any express interpretation of the parabolic
terms.
Now, the prophecy, no doubt, must be considerably obscured by
this circumstance. But then let it be considered, that we have
proportionable _means_ of understanding it. For, if the symbols be
continued, they are still but the _same_[170], as had been before in
use with the elder prophets; whose writings, therefore, are the proper
and the certain key of the _Revelations_.
From these distinctive characters, then, of the Apocalyptic style[171],
nothing more can be inferred, than the necessity of studying _the Law,
and the Prophets_, in order to understand the language of this last and
most mysterious revelation. And what is more natural, nay what can be
thought more divine, than that, in a system, composed of two dependent
dispensations, the study of the former should be made necessary to the
comprehension of the latter; and that the very uniformity of style and
colouring, in the two sets of prophecies, should admonish us of the
intimate connexion, which each has with the other, to the end that we
might the better conceive the meaning, and fathom the depth, of the
divine councils in _both_?
But, without speculating further on the final purposes of this Judaical
and Symbolical character, so strongly impressed on the Apocalypse,
it must evidently appear that the difficulties of interpretation,
occasioned by it, are not invincible; nay, that, to an attentive and
rightly prepared interpreter, they will be scarce any difficulties at
all[172].
I proceed, then,
II. To the SECOND, and more considerable cause of the obscurities,
found in this prophecy, the METHOD, in which it is composed.
The other prophecies have, doubtless, their difficulties, arising from
the abrupt manner, in which, agreeably to the Oriental genius, they are
delivered: But then, being short and unconnected with each other, the
apparent disorder of those prophecies, has rarely any sensible effect
in preventing the right application of them. The case is different with
the prophecies, contained in this book. For, having been all delivered
at once, and respecting a series of events, which were to come to pass
successively in the history of the Christian Church, it is reasonable
to expect that some certain and determinable method should be observed
in the delivery of them; and the true secret of that method, whatever
it be, must be investigated, before we can, with success, apply any
single prophecy to its proper subject.
The _first_, and most obvious expectation of a reader is, that the
events predicted in this prophecy should follow each other in the order
of the prophecy itself, or that the series of the visions should mark
out and determine the succession of the subjects, to which they relate.
But there is reason to think, on the face of the prophecy, that this
method is not observed.
A _second_ conclusion would, then, be hastily taken up, that there
is no regular method at all in these visions, but that each is to be
applied singly, and without any reference to the rest, to such events
as it might be found, in some tolerable degree, to suit: And then
it is plain, that fancy would have too much scope afforded her in
the interpretation of these visions, to produce any firm and settled
conviction, that they were rightly and properly applied. Yet, as this
idea of the Apocalypse would favour the laziness, the precipitancy, the
presumption, and, very often, the malignity of the human mind, it is no
wonder that it should be readily and eagerly embraced. And, in fact, it
was to this pre-conceived notion of a general disorder in the texture
of these prophecies, that the little progress, which, for many ages,
had been made in the exposition of them, is chiefly to be ascribed.
But then, _lastly_, if neither the order of the prophecy be that of
the events, nor a total disorder in the construction of it can be
reasonably allowed, the question is, By what _rules_ was it composed,
and on what ideas of _method_ is it to be explained?
This question, as obvious as it seems, was not presently asked; and,
when it was asked, not easily answered. The clear light, indeed, which
the Reformation had let in on some parts bf this prophecy, and a spirit
of inquiry, which sprung up with the revival of Letters, excited a
general attention to this mysterious book. But, as each interpreter
brought his own hypothesis along with him, the perplexities of it
were not lessened, but increased by so many discordant schemes of
interpretation: And the issue of much elaborate inquiry was, that the
book itself was disgraced by the fruitless efforts of its commentators,
and on the point of being given up, as utterly impenetrable, when
a sublime Genius arose, in the beginning of the last century, and
surprised the learned world with that great desideratum, _A Key to the
Revelations_.
This extraordinary person was, JOSEPH MEDE: of whose character it may
not be improper to give a slight sketch, before I lay before you the
substance of his discoveries.
HE was a candid, sincere man; disinterested, and unambitious; of no
faction in religion or government (both which began in his time to be
overrun with factions) but solely devoted to the love of truth, and to
the investigation of it. His learning was vast, but well chosen and
well digested; and his understanding, in no common degree, strong and
capacious.
With these qualities of the head and heart, he came to the study of
the prophecies, and especially of the Revelations: But, with so little
_bigotry_ for the scheme of interpretation concerning Antichrist,
that, as he tells us himself, _he had even conceived some prejudice
against it_[173]: And, what is stranger still in a man of his inventive
genius, with so little _enthusiasm_ in his temper for _any_ scheme of
interpretation whatsoever, that, when he had made his great discovery,
he was in no haste to publish it to the world[174]; and, when at length
he did this, he was still less in haste to apply it, that is, to shew
its important use in explaining the Apocalyptic visions[175]. Cool,
deliberate, and severe, in forming his judgments, he was so far from
being obsequious to the fancies of other men, that he was determined
only, by the last degree of evidence, to acquiesce in any conclusions
of his own[176].
In short, with no _vanity_ to indulge, (for he was superior to this
last infirmity of ingenious men[177])—with no _interest_ in view (for
the interest of Churchmen lay at that time, as he well understood, in a
different quarter[178])—with no _spleen_ to gratify (for even neglect
and solitude could not engender this unmanly vice in him[179])—with
no oblique purposes, I say, which so often mislead the pens of other
writers, but with the single, unmixed love of truth, he dedicated his
great talents to the study of the prophetic Scriptures, and was able
to unfold, in the MANNER I am now to represent to you, this mysterious
prophecy of the Revelations.
He had observed, that the miscarriage of former interpreters had been
owing, chiefly, to a vain desire of finding their own sense in this
prophecy, rather than the sense of the prophet. Laying aside, then, all
hypotheses whatsoever, he sate down to the book itself, and resolved
to know nothing more of it, than what the frame and texture of its
composition might clearly reveal to him. He considered the whole, as
a naked recital of facts, literally expressed; and not as a prophetic
scheme, mystically represented. In this way of inquiry, he discerned,
that several parts of the history, whatever their secret and involved
meaning might be, were _homogeneous_, and _contemporary_; that is,
they related to the same subject, and were comprised within the same
period; and this, though they were not connected in the order of the
narration, but lay dispersed in different quarters of it. These several
sets of historical passages (or, of _Visions_, to speak in the language
of the book itself) he carefully analyzed and compared; shewed, from
circumstances, not imagined, but found, in the history, their mutual
relation and correspondency; and established his conclusions, as he
went along, not in a loose way of popular conjecture, but in the
strictest forms of Geometric reasoning. The coincident histories, thus
classed and scrutinized, he distinguished by the name of SYNCHRONISMS;
and gave them to the learned world, in this severe scientific form,
without further comment or illustration, under the title of CLAVIS
APOCALYPTICA, or A KEY TO THE REVELATIONS.
In considering this discovery, which did so much honour to the profound
genius and accurate investigation of its author, one clearly perceives
how it serves to the end proposed.
_First_, it appears that the order of the Visions is not that of the
events; in other words, that the prophecy is not to be so explained, as
if the events, predicted in it, followed each other in the same train
as the Visions. For the _facts_, which constitute the scheme or fable
of the prophecy, literally and historically considered, do not succeed
to each other in that train; therefore the _events_, whatever they may
be, which those facts adumbrate, most certainly cannot.
_Secondly_, it appears what the true, or chronological order of the
Visions, is; namely, that, which the nature and connexion of the things
transacted in them, points out and declares. So that, if the real time
of any one Vision can be shewn, the relative time of the rest may be
easily settled. For (to quote Mr. Mede’s own words) _such Visions
as contemporate with that already ascertained, are of course to be
applied to the same times; while such as, in the order of the story,
precede that Vision, are to be referred to preceding events, and those,
which follow it, are in like manner to be explained of subsequent
transactions_[180].
By this means, the whole plan or method of the Apocalypse will be laid
down. The several synchronical prophecies will thus fall in their
proper places; and there will be no doubt of the relative situation,
which each holds in the general system.
_Thirdly_, as we now see the true order of the prophecies (though for
the wisest reasons, no doubt, the order, in which they are delivered,
be sometimes different) so it is to be observed, that the knowledge
of this order is a great restraint on the fancy of an expositor; who
is not now at liberty to apply the prophecies to events of any time,
to which they appear to suit, but to events only falling within that
time, to which they belong in the course of this pre-determined method.
And if to this restriction, which of itself is considerable, we add
_another_, which arises from the necessity of applying, not one, but
many prophecies (which are, thus, shewn to synchronize with each other)
to the _same_ time, we can hardly conceive how an interpretation should
keep clear of these impediments, and make its way through so many
interfering checks, unless it be the _true_ one. Just as when a Lock
(to take the author’s allusion) is composed of many, and intricate
wards, the _Key_, that turns easily within them, and opens the Lock,
can only be that which properly belongs to it.
After all, it may be difficult, I know, to convey a distinct idea
of the uses, to which this synchronal method serves, to those who
have not read, and even studied, Mr. Mede’s work. But the sum of the
matter is this, That the order of the events and of the Visions is
_not_ the same—that the _true_ order of the events, is to be sought
in certain characters, not fancied at pleasure, but inserted, in the
Visions themselves—and, lastly, that the whole book of the Revelations
being thus resolvable into a particular determinate order, in which
the several sets of synchronal prophecies regularly succeed to each
other, no exposition of this book can be admitted, that does not refer
every single prophecy to its true place in the system, and provide at
the same time that no violence be done to any other prophecies, which
synchronize with it.
And thus much concerning the TRUE ORDER of the Apocalypse; deduced,
you see, from no precarious hypothetic reasonings, but from notes and
characters, inclosed in that book; that is, from intrinsic arguments,
which have their evidence in themselves, and conclude alike on every
supposition.
If we would know more distinctly what the EXTERIOR FORM of it is; and
how it comes to differ so widely from the plan of a chronological
arrangement; here, too, our sagacious expositor will give us
satisfaction. For, in bringing together and comparing his synchronisms,
he found (what had escaped the attention of all others) that the main
body of the prophecy is made up of TWO[181] great parts; which are,
also, synchronical; so that, setting out from the same goal, and
measuring the same space, they both concur in the same end: but with
this difference, that the _former_ division more immediately regards
the affairs of the _Empire_; the _latter_, those of the _Church_.
Still, this is not all. Our attentive and penetrating commentator
further discovered, That the two great component parts of this
prophecy, though distinct, are very artificially connected, and shewn
to harmonize throughout with each other, by making the same concluding
event[182], once told, the catastrophe of both. For the _former_ part
is purposely, and with express warning given[183], left unfinished,
till a summary deduction of the _latter_ part down to the same point
of time[184], (by way of prelude to the more extended visions of this
last part, which follow to the end of the book, and to signify, that
both parts are contemporary) furnished the occasion of shutting up the
two prophecies together in one common term: which, however, had the
appearance of being misplaced, till the detection of this singular
contrivance, by means of the synchronisms, pointed out the use and end
of the present disposition[185].
_Another_ cause of the seeming perplexity in which this Prophecy is
involved, is, That, it being expedient to treat the same subject in
different respects, and to give different views of it, according as
two sets of men, the true worshipers and the false, were affected by
the fortunes of the Christian Church, this shifting and opposite face
of things could not be exhibited together; but was to be set forth
in several and successive, though contemporary, visions. Hence, the
prophecy is thought to proceed, when, in fact, it stands still, and
only presents another prospect of the same transactions.
But I enter no farther into the mysterious contexture of this book;
through which, however, the clue of the synchronisms, if well pursued,
would safely conduct us. It is enough to my purpose to have shewn, That
as the _Language_ of the Revelations is intelligible, so the _Method_
is not involved in such intricacies, but that, in general, a regular, a
consistent, and, what is more, a _true_[186] conception may be formed
of it. Whence no sober man needs be discouraged from reading this
book; or will be in danger, I think, of losing either his wits, or his
reputation, in the study of it. For what should hinder a book, though
of prophecies, from being understood, when its _method_ may be clearly
defined, and its _language decyphered_? Provided always, that we only
interpret a prophecy by the event, and do not take upon us to determine
the event by a premature construction of the prophecy.
With this Apocalyptic key then (of which so much has been said), this
_key of knowledge_, in my hands, it may, now, be expected that I should
open this _dark parable_ of the Revelation, by applying so much of it,
at least, as respects Antichrist, to Apostate Papal Rome. But, besides
that there would not, in what remains of this course, be room enough
for a detailed account of the prophecies, _other reasons_ restrain
me from entering immediately on a task, not less easy perhaps, than
amusing. For Interpreters, I think, have generally been too much in
haste to apply the prophecies, before they had sufficiently prepared
the way for their application: So that, leaving many doubts unresolved,
which men of thought and inquiry are apt to entertain on this subject,
or not laying before them all the reasons and inducements, which should
engage their attention to it, their clearest expositions are not
received, and possibly not considered.
With regard, then, to the prophecies, concerning Antichrist, though
the chief obstructions in our way seem fairly removed, and it be now
evident that there _are_ certain grounds, on which the most abstruse
of them may be reasonably interpreted, yet, because the application
of them is a work of time and industry, many persons, before they
undertake it, may desire to know, What GENERAL ARGUMENTS there are,
which may assure them, beforehand, that their labour will not be
misemployed, and that Papal Rome is, in fact, concerned in the tenour
of these prophecies: And, when this demand has been made, they may
further wish to be informed, To what ENDS OR USES this whole inquiry
serves; of importance enough, I mean, to encourage and reward their
vigorous prosecution of it?
These desires and expectations are apparently not unreasonable: And to
satisfy them, in the best manner I can, will be the scope and purpose
of the two following Lectures.
SERMON XI.
PROPHETIC CHARACTERS OF ANTICHRIST.
LUKE xii. 56.
—_How is it, that ye do not discern this time?_
So much having been said on the _manner_, in which the prophecies,
respecting Antichrist, may be interpreted; I imagine that now, at
length, ye are disposed to ask, On what GENERAL GROUNDS we affirm, that
the Church of Rome is actually concerned in them.
To resolve this question, it will be sufficient to set before you, in
few words, some of the more obvious _notes_, or _characters_, by which
Antichrist is marked out in the prophecies: such, and so many of them,
as may convince you, that they are fairly applicable to the Church
of Rome; and that, taken together, they cannot well admit any other
application.
Of these prophetic characters,
I. The FIRST, I shall mention, is, _That we are to look for Antichrist
within the proper limits of the Roman empire_.