authority of the prophet Daniel, and can be none: For that prophet, in
his famous vision of the four kingdoms, says expressly, that, _among_
the ten kingdoms into which the fourth, or Roman, shall be divided,
ANOTHER _shall arise_[187]; that is, as all interpreters agree, the
kingdom of Antichrist. So that this power, whatever it be, must have
its birth and seat within the compass of the ten kingdoms, that is,
of the Roman empire, when, in some future time from the giving of
Daniel’s prophecy, it should be so divided.
But, to fix the station of the Antichristian power more precisely, it
is to be observed, that, as the four kingdoms of Daniel, considered in
succession to each other, form a _prophetic chronology_[188]; so in
another view, they form a _prophetic geography_[189], being considered,
in the eye of prophecy, as _co-existent_, as still _alive_, and
subsisting together, when the dominion of all, but the last, was taken
away[190].
In consequence of this idea, which Daniel gives us of his four
kingdoms, so much only is to be reckoned into the description of each
kingdom, as is peculiar to each; the remainder being part of some other
kingdom, still supposed to be in being, to which it properly belongs.
Thus, the SECOND, or Persian kingdom, does not take in the nations of
Chaldæa and Assyria, which make the body of the _first_ kingdom; nor
the THIRD, or Græcian kingdom, the countries of Media and Persia, being
the body of the _second_. In like manner, the FOURTH, or Roman kingdom,
does not, in the contemplation of the prophet, comprehend those
provinces, which make the body of the _third_, or Græcian kingdom, but
such only as constitute its own body, that is, the provinces on this
side of Greece: where, therefore, we are to look for the _eleventh_, or
Antichristian kingdom, as being to start up _among_ the ten, into which
the Roman kingdom should be divided.
We see, then, that, as Antichrist was to arise within the Roman
kingdom, so his station is farther limited to the European part of that
kingdom, or to the _Western empire_, properly so called.
This observation (which is not mine, but Sir Isaac Newton’s) is the
better worth making, because, in fact, the papal sovereignty never
extended farther than the Western provinces; at least, could never gain
a firm and permanent footing in the countries, which lie East of the
Mediterranean sea. But, whether you admit this interpretation, or not,
it is still clear that Antichrist was to arise somewhere within the
limits of the Roman empire. In what _part_ of that empire he was to
make his appearance, we certainly gather from
II. A SECOND prophetical note or character of this power, which is,
_That his seat and throne was to be the city of Rome itself_.
The prophet Daniel acquaints us only that the power we call
Antichristian, would spring up from _among_ the ruins of the fourth,
or Roman kingdom: But St. John, in the _Revelations_, fixes his
residence in the _capital city_ of that kingdom. For, when, in one of
his visions, he had been shewn a portentous _beast with seven heads and
ten horns, and a woman arrayed in purple_, riding upon him, an Angel
is made to interpret this symbolic vision in the following words—_The
seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth—and the
ten horns, which thou sawest, are ten kings—and the woman, which
thou sawest, is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the
earth_[191].
Words cannot be more determinate, than these. The _woman_, that rides
this BEAST, that is, the fourth empire, in its last state of _ten
horns_, or divided into ten kingdoms, is that Antichristian power, of
which we are now inquiring. She is seated on _seven hills_, nay, she is
_that great city, which reigneth_ [that is, in St. John’s time which
_reigned_] over the _kingdoms of the earth_. Rome, then, is the throne
of Antichrist, or is that city, which shall one day be Antichristian.
There is no possibility of evading the force of these terms.
It hath been said, that Constantinople, too, was situated on seven
hills. It may be so: But Constantinople did not, in the time of this
vision, _reign over the kings of the earth_. Besides, if its _dominion_
had not been mentioned, _the city on seven hills_ is so characteristic
of Rome, that the name itself could not have pointed it out more
plainly: As must be evident to all those, who recollect, what the Latin
writers have said on this subject.
The—_septem domini montes_—of one[192] poet is well known; and seems
the abridgement of a still more famous line in another[193]—
_Septem urbs alta jugis, toto quæ præsidet orbi_:
To which, St. John’s idea of a _woman, seated on seven hills, and
reigning over the kings of the earth_, so exactly corresponds, that one
sees no difference between the poet and the prophet; except that the
_latter_ personifies his idea, as the genius of the prophetic style
required.
But a passage in Virgil is so much to our purpose, that it merits a
peculiar attention. This poet, in the most finished of his works, had
been celebrating the praises of a country life, which he makes the
source and origin of the Roman greatness.
_Hanc_ olim veteres vitam coluere Sabini;
_Hanc_ Remus et frater: _sic_ fortis Etruria crevit:
Scilicet et rerum facta est pulcherrima Roma[194].
The encomium, we see, is made with that gradual pomp, which is
familiar to Virgil. And the last line (from its majestic simplicity,
the noblest, perhaps, in all his writings) one would naturally expect
should close the description. Yet he adds, to the surprize, and, I
believe, to the disappointment of most readers,
_Septemque una sibi muro circumdedit arces_.
Had we found this passage in any other of the Latin poets, we should
have been apt to question the judgment of the writer; and to suspect,
that, in attempting to rise upon himself, he had fallen, unawares, into
an evident anti-climax. But the correct elegance of Virgil’s manner,
and his singular talent in working up an image, by just degrees, to the
precise point of perfection, may satisfy us, that he had his reason
for going on, where we might expect him to stop; which reason can
be no other, than that the _seven hills_ were necessary to complete
his description of the imperial city[195]. To an ancient Roman, the
circumstance of its _situation_ was, of all others, the most august and
characteristic; and Rome itself was not Rome, till it was contemplated
under this idea.
There was ground enough, then, for saying, “that the _name_ of Rome
could not have pointed out the city _more plainly_.” But I go farther,
and take upon me to assert, That the _periphrasis_ is even more
precise, and less equivocal, than the _proper name_ would have been,
if inserted in the prophecy. For _Rome_, so called, might have stood,
like Sodom, or Babylon, simply for an idolatrous City. But the city,
_seated on seven hills_, and _reigning over the earth_, is the city of
Rome itself, and excludes, by the peculiarity of these attributes, any
other application.
Nor is it any objection to the remark, now made, that this city,
whatever it be, is described by _another_ circumstance, not peculiar to
Rome, indeed scarce applicable to it, I mean that of its being _seated
on many waters_[196]. For these _waters_ are not given as a mark of
Rome’s _natural_, but _political_ situation: as the prophetic style
might lead one to expect, if the sacred writer had not taken care to
prevent all mistake by assuring us, in so many words, That _the waters,
where the whore sitteth, are_ PEOPLES, AND MULTITUDES, AND NATIONS, AND
TONGUES[197].
If it be, further, said, “That the _seven hills_ may, likewise, admit
a similar construction from the frequent use of _hills_, as emblems
of _power_, in hieroglyphic writing, and therefore in prophetic
description,” the remark is very just: but then, unluckily, there is
no such explanation of the _seven hills_, as we have of the _waters_,
from the prophet himself; while yet it could not escape him, that
such explanation was more than commonly necessary in this case, to
prevent the reader from applying the _seven hills_ to the best-known
city in the world, then subsisting in all its glory, and universally
acknowledged by this distinctive character of its situation.
Should it, lastly, be alledged, “That the explanation is subjoined to
the figure, for that the prophet adds immediately in the following
verse—_and there are seven kings_—meaning, that the _seven hills_,
just mentioned, were to be taken as emblems only of _seven kings_,”
I reply, that the _seven hills_, in the figurative sense of the
term, _hills_, naturally suggested, and elegantly introduce, the
_seven kings_; but that the _former_, nevertheless, are clearly to be
distinguished from the _latter_. For it is not said—_and the seven
hills are seven kings_—as it was before said—_the seven heads are
seven hills_—but—AND _there are seven kings_—plainly advancing a
step further in the prophecy, and pointing out a new characteristic
distinction of the seven-hilled city, arising from the different forms
of Government, through which it had passed.
The truth is (as Mr. Mede well observes[198]) _the seven heads of
the beast_, are a DOUBLE TYPE: _first_, they signify the _seven
hills_, on which the city is placed; and, _then_, the _seven kings_,
or governments, to which it had been subject; but still _on_ those
seven hills, for which reason the same type is made to signify both:
But, if the type had been designed to carry a _single_ sense, and
_kings_ had been that sense, as explicatory of _hills_, it had been
very preposterous to give the _interpretation_ of the type, and then
to _interpret_ the interpretation, unless the expression had been so
guarded as to convey this purpose in the most distinct manner. As it is
now put, there are manifestly TWO SENSES, and ONE TYPE[199].
On the whole, there can be no doubt concerning _the great city on seven
hills_. It can be no other, than the city of Rome itself: In other
words, the Antichristian, is a _Roman Power_.
Still, this Roman power, for any thing that hath hitherto appeared, may
be a _Pagan_ and _Civil_ power. But
III. The prophecies seem very clearly to point it out to us, _as an_
ECCLESIASTICAL and, in name and pretence, at least, _a_ CHRISTIAN
_power_.
To begin again with the prophet, Daniel. He tells us, that the Horn
which shall _arise after_, and from _among_, the ten horns, that is,
the Antichristian kingdom, as before explained, shall be DIVERSE from
the ten kingdoms, out of which it shall arise[200]. “But a kingdom may
be _diverse_ from other kingdoms, in various respects.” Without doubt.
And, therefore, we cannot certainly conclude from this single text,
that the _diversity_, mentioned, will consist in its being a spiritual
kingdom. Yet, if ye reflect that this _diversity_ is given, as the
characteristic mark of the Antichristian kingdom; that, although there
may be other and smaller differences between kingdoms, the greatest and
most signal is that which subsists between a temporal and spiritual
power; nay, that Government, as such, is, and can only be, of two
sorts, civil and spiritual, as corresponding to the two constituent
parts of _man_, (the subject of all government in this world,) the Soul
and the Body: Taking, I say, these considerations along with you, ye
cannot esteem it a very harsh and violent interpretation, if, without
looking any farther, we incline to think that this _diversity_ of
regimen, so emphatically pointed out, respects that great and essential
difference in human government, _only_. At least, it will be admitted,
that, if, from other and more express testimonies, the government of
Antichrist appear to be a spiritual government, we shall, then, be
authorized to put such a construction on Daniel’s prophecy, as will
reach the full force and import of his expression. Such a kingdom must
be allowed to be eminently _diverse_ from secular kingdoms. So that
the harmony between the prophets on this subject will be clear and
striking.
Now, such a testimony we seem to find in the Apostle, St. Paul; who,
prophesying of _the man of Sin_, or Antichrist, to be revealed in the
latter days, makes it a distinguishing part of his character, _That
he_ SITTETH IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD[201]. Consider the force of these
words. A power, _seated in the temple of God_, can be nothing but a
power suitable to that place, or a _spiritual_ power: just as a power,
_seated in the throne of Cæsar_, could only be interpreted of a _civil_
power.
Nor say, because the context runs thus—“that he, AS GOD, sitteth in
the temple of God, SHEWING himself that he IS GOD—that therefore it
only means his claiming _divine honours_: a degree of blasphemy, very
applicable to a _civil_ power.” This objection has clearly no force:
because his _sitting in the temple of God_ was the very _means_ (if
we rightly apply this prophecy) by which the man of sin rose to that
abominable pre-eminence. It was by virtue of his _spiritual_, that he
assumed a _divine_ character. So that the phrase—_as God_—and that
other—_shewing himself that he is God_—sets before us, indeed, the
extravagant height to which the man of sin aspired, and to which he
ascended; but, no way invalidates the conclusion from his sitting in
the temple of God—that he was a _spiritual power_. Rather, we see
the propriety of this conclusion: because the text, thus understood,
suggests the _way_ in which the man of sin accomplished his blasphemous
purpose: His _success_ arose, from his _station_ in the temple. On
the other hand, a power _sitting in the throne of Cæsar_, might sit
there _as God_, and might _shew himself that he was God_ (as many of
the Roman Emperors did:) So that the clause—_sitting in the temple of
God_—has evidently no peculiar fitness, as applied to the usurpation
of divine honours by a _civil tyrant_; whereas we see it has that
fitness, when applied to a _spiritual_ tyrant. The context therefore
proves nothing against the interpretation, here proposed and defended.
But, what is this _temple of God_? The temple at Jerusalem, it will be
said; the only temple, so called, then subsisting in the world[202].
Admit this to be the literal sense of the words. Yet ye remember so
much of what hath been said concerning the prophetic style, as not to
think it strange, that the literal sense should involve in it another,
a _mystical_ meaning. And this, without any uncertainty whatsoever.
For so, the term, _Jew_, means a _Christian_; the term, _David_, means
_Christ_; the _incense_ of the temple-service, means the _prayers_
of Christians; plainly and confessedly so, in numberless instances.
Agreeably to this analogical use of Jewish terms, in the style of the
prophets, _the temple of God_, nay _the temple of Jerusalem_[203] (if
that had been the expression) must, in all reason, be interpreted of
the _Christian church_, and could not, in the prophetic language, be
interpreted otherwise. When, therefore, Antichrist is said to _sit in
the temple of God_, it is the same thing as if it had been said of
him, _That he sitteth_, or ruleth, _in the church of Christ_. Now,
substitute these words—_the church of Christ_—in the room of those
other words—_the temple of God_; and see, if St. Paul, supposing his
purpose had been to express a spiritual power in opposition to a civil;
see, I say, if St. Paul could have conveyed that purpose more plainly.
Still, we have another, and, if possible, a more decisive testimony
in the _Revelations_. For, among the different views, which St. John
gives us of Antichrist, in so many distinct visions, one is set before
us in the following manner—_And I beheld another beast coming up out
of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a
Dragon_[204]. Now, if we had known nothing more of these symbols, than
what the obvious qualities of the animals themselves suggested to us,
we could only have inferred, that this ruling power (for that is the
idea conveyed by the term, _Beast_) would put on the appearance of a
gentle and pacific administration: I say, the _appearance_; for what
its _real_ character was to be, is clearly enough expressed in what
follows, that this lamb-like beast _spake as a Dragon_. But, when we
further reflect, that _horns_, in the prophetic style, are the emblems
of _power_, and that a _Lamb_ is the peculiar, the _appropriated_
symbol of Christ, _the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world_[205], and is constantly so employed throughout this whole
prophecy of the Revelations, we must, of necessity, conclude that
_a beast with the horns of a lamb_ can only be a state or person,
pretending to such powers, as Christ exercised, and his Religion
authoriseth; that is, powers, _not of this world_, but purely spiritual.
The other symbol of a _Dragon_, confirms this conclusion. For a
_Dragon_, in the prophecies, is the known symbol of the old Roman
Government in its pagan, persecuting state. When, therefore, it is said
that the beast _spake as a Dragon_, the meaning is, That Antichrist
should assume the highest tone of civil authority in promoting his
tyrannous purposes, though he cloked his fierce pretensions under the
meek semblance of a spiritual character. Taken together, these two
symbols speak as plainly, as symbolic terms can speak, That Antichrist
was to be a _religious person_, acting in the spirit of a _secular
tyrant_. So exactly is he characterised by the poet Mantuan, addressing
himself to one of the Popes—
_Ense_ potens _gemino_, cujus vestigia adorant
Cæsar et aurato vestiti murice reges.
On the whole, I leave it to be considered, whether, when the prophecies
pronounce of Antichrist, that he should be, a power _diverse_ from all
others—that he should _sit in the temple of God_—and that he should
have _the horns of a lamb_—I leave it, I say, to your consideration,
whether it be not plain that this extraordinary power, a Roman power,
and residing at Rome, was to be a _Christian and Ecclesiastical_, and
not a _Pagan and Civil_ power.
IV. Another obvious character of Antichrist, or rather, _complication_
of characters, is that triple brand, impressed upon him, of a
_tyrannical, intolerant, and idolatrous_, power.
The prophets hold him up to us, as _reigning_, or exercising an
oppressive and supereminent dominion, _over the kings of the earth_,
that is, of the Western empire[206]; as _making war with the lamb, and
the saints who receive not his mark in their foreheads_[207], that is,
persecuting good and conscientious Christians, who refuse to wear the
badge of Antichrist, and to serve under him; and, as another _Babylon,
the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth_[208], that is,
as polluted himself with the grossest idolatry, and as corrupting the
nations with the same prophane worship.
But these marks, it will be said, have been found upon so many powers,
which have appeared in the world, that they cannot be given as the
_distinctive_ marks of _one_, that is, of the Papal Power: Nay, the
Bishop of Meaux goes further, and attempts to shew, by a very refined
argument, that the very _terms_ of _whoredom_ and _fornication_, in
which the _last_ of these marks, I mean, IDOLATRY, is set forth by the
prophet in the _book of Revelations_, make it impossible for us to
apply that mark to Rome Christian.
Let us see, then, _first_, what force there is in the criticism of this
learned Prelate.
That _whoredom_, or _fornication_, in the language of scripture, means
_idolatry_, is agreed on all hands, and cannot be disputed: Whether the
figurative use of this term arose from observing, how constantly that
pollution attended idolatrous worship; or how fitly a communication
with false gods may be compared with that unlawful commerce: Whatever
be the ground of the analogy, it is clear to a demonstration that
_whoredom_ is but another name for _idolatry_, which, under this idea,
is very frequently charged upon the Jews by the ancient prophets.
Sometimes, however, (without doubt, to aggravate the charge) the
idolatry of the Jews is considered in the light of _adultery_, that is,
of infidelity to the God of Israel; to whom, as to her proper Lord and
_Husband_, the Jewish nation had, by express stipulation, and in the
most solemn manner, contracted herself.
But, notwithstanding this promiscuous application of the terms,
_fornication_, and _adultery_, to the idolatry of the Jews in the
ancient prophecies, it hath been remarked by the Bishop of Meaux, “That
Babylon, or Rome, in the Revelations, is constantly and uniformly
spoken of, as a _whore_, and not as an _adulteress_: whence he
concludes, that this charge is brought against Pagan Rome only, and not
Christian Rome. For, why, he asks, is so much care taken not to impute
_adultery_ to idolatrous Rome, if it had been a Christian city? when
its polluting itself with this crime, contrary to the most express
engagements, which Christians take upon themselves, of fidelity to the
only true God, might justly deserve, and, in propriety, may seem to
require, this opprobrious charge, rather than that other lighter one
of _fornication_; whereas, if Pagan Rome be here meant, its idolatry
could only be set forth under the idea of _fornication_, and not of
_adultery_[209].”
Now, although, as I observed, the idolatrous Jews are frequently
treated by their prophets, as _fornicators_, as well as _adulterers_,
nay, are much more frequently[210] represented under the _former_
idea, than the _latter_; and although it be therefore true, that
_fornication_ is not necessarily, and exclusively, to be understood of
Pagan idolatry, but may well be applied to Christian idolaters, as it
was to the Jewish; yet the force of the learned objector’s argument
will not be obviated by this observation only. For the stress of it
lies in this, “That the idolatry of Rome in the Revelations is _every
where_, that is, purposely, termed _fornication_ (to insinuate to us,
that the charge is directed against a Pagan City, and not a Christian
Church), and _no where_, that is, purposely again, called _adultery_.”
The objection is extremely ingenious; and, so far as I know, hath
been, hitherto, unanswered. Yet, if any good reason can be assigned
why the prophet should thus studiously prefer the term, _fornication_,
to that of _adultery_, in describing the idolatry of Christian Rome,
notwithstanding those terms be used indifferently by the Jewish
prophets, when they reprove the idolatry of their own countrymen, the
Bishop of Meaux would himself acknowledge, that his objection falls to
the ground.
Now such a reason offers itself to us in the EMBLEM, under which St.
John chuses to represent his idolatrous society. This emblem is,
_Babylon_; a Pagan idolatrous city; to which the idea of _fornication_
may be colourably, and hath, in fact, been, applied[211], in order
to express the transgression of the law of nature, in its idolatrous
worship: But to such a city, _adultery_, could in no proper sense, be
applied; because, it had never entered into any close engagement, or
_marriage-contract_, as it were, with the God of heaven.
This being admitted, we see the reason, why Rome Christian is taxed
as a _whore_ simply, and not as an adulteress. For what had been
improperly said of the _type_, cannot, on the principles of decorum,
be transferred to the _anti-type_. If Babylon be only a _harlot_,
she is a harlot still, and nothing more, when she stands for Rome,
whether Pagan, or Christian. The concinnity of the figure, and the
just correspondence of the thing signified to the sign, demands the
observance of this rule; which cannot be violated without manifest
absurdity and confusion.
“But why then, it is asked, was such an emblem employed? Why was not
Jerusalem, or Samaria (of which _adultery_ might be predicated) rather
chosen, than Babylon, for the type, or representation of _idolatrous
Christian Rome_?”
The reason, again, is obvious. It was, because Babylon was the _first_
of all idolatrous cities; and the _fittest_[212] to emblematize the
enormous guilt, or to set in full light the extensive influence, of
idolatrous Rome. For each, in its turn, was _the mother of harlots and
abominations of the earth_; the _former_ corrupting the _heathen_ world
with her fornication, and the latter, the _Christian_.