emblem of Christian Rome, the prophet was obliged to retain the idea of
fornication, only, and not to interpose that of adultery, through the
whole tenour of his application.
It may, further, be worth observing, that _pagan_ idolatry is, for the
most part, exposed by the ancient prophets under the notion of LYES,
or LYING VANITIES[213]; and very rarely, I think in no more than one
or two short passages, under that of _fornication_. For vague lust was
so generally practised in the heathen world, and the law of nature,
condemning that vice, so little known, or respected by it, that the
metaphor would not have conveyed to a Pagan idolater the atrocious
nature of his crime. The Mosaic Law, on the other hand, interdicting
fornication in the severest terms, and requiring that _there should be
no whore of the daughters of Israel_[214], the guilt of idolatry was
very forcibly, as well as naturally, represented to a Jew, under that
idea.
Accordingly, we find, that the prophets every where, and in whole
pages, employ this figure, when they address themselves to Jewish
idolaters. Whence it may seem, that, although there be sufficient
authorities to justify the prophet St. John in considering his
emblematic Babylon under the idea of a _harlot_, yet he would not
have prosecuted even this inferior charge of _fornication_ so far as
he has done, and in so many parts of his prophecy, if his purpose had
not been to apply it to a _believing_, and not a Pagan city. If the
mystical Babylon be _Christian_ Rome, we see the force and propriety of
this representation; which had clearly been less apt, if Pagan Rome,
according to the Bishop of Meaux, had been intended by the prophet.
We see then, in both ways, why Rome is not an _adulteress_ in the
Revelations; and why she is so emphatically, a _harlot_. The type
employed forbad the _former_ charge, though the anti-type be _Rome
Christian_: The _latter_ charge had not been so much laboured, if the
anti-type had been _Rome Pagan_.
Thus, the edge of this acute objection is entirely taken off, and the
execution, it was to make on the Protestant system, prevented.
To return, now, to the consideration of our _three_ marks. These
marks, it is said, agree to so many other powers, besides that of
the Papacy, that they cannot be made the peculiar, distinctive
characters of Christian Rome. And, without doubt, considered merely
in themselves, they cannot. But, having already understood that the
power, thus stigmatized, is a power seated in the _seven-hilled_ city,
and that too, an _ecclesiastical_ power, one sees clearly that, if the
prophecies have hitherto received their accomplishment in any degree,
these marks can only be sought in Papal Rome, and must be the proper,
exclusive characters of that power. I say, _one sees this_; but, it
must be owned, not without amazement, That a species of government,
calling itself Christian, and professing to model itself on the example
of the _Lamb_, on the pure and simple principles of the Gospel, should
yet be all over stained with those specific vices, which Christianity
most abhors—the utmost pride of secular domination—the most
relentless zeal against the rights of conscience—and, what is still
more incredible, the most blasphemous idolatry. The accumulated infamy
of these crimes struck the prophet, St. John, so forcibly, that, on the
sight of this portentous monster, exhibited to him in the vision, _he
wondered_, as himself expresses it, _with great admiration_[215].
But, strange as this vision appeared to the sacred _prophet_, the Papal
history is found to realize all the wonders of it: And, backward as we
may be to interpret this vision of a church, professedly Christian,
that church herself is so little scandalized at the imputation of these
crimes, that she is ready to avow them all; the _two first_, directly
and openly; and the _last_, when set in a certain light, and explained
in her own manner. In short, she prides herself in the _extent of her
sway_[216], and the _fire of her zeal_[217], and only quibbles with us
about the meaning of the term, _idolatry_.
To cut the matter short, then, and to keep clear of those endless
debates concerning the worship of _Images_, of the _Cross_, and of
the _Host_ in the celebration of the Mass; debates, which a dextrous
sophist may find means to carry on with a shew of argument, and with
some degree of plausibility; To set aside, I say, all these topics,
let it be observed, at once, That _idolatry_, in the scriptural sense
of the word, is of _two sorts_, and consists either, 1. in giving the
honour due to the one true God, as maker and governor of the world, to
any other supposed, though subordinate god; Or, 2, in giving the honour
due to Christ, as the sole mediator between God and Man, to any other
supposed, though subordinate, mediator. The _former_, is the idolatry
forbidden by the Jewish law, and by the law of Nature: The _latter_,
is Christian idolatry, properly so called, and is the abomination,
prohibited and condemned, in so severe terms, by the law of the Gospel.
Now, whether the _former_ species of idolatry be chargeable on the
church of Rome or not; and whether the _crime_ of that species, may not
be incurred by honouring the true object of worship, through the medium
of some sensible image: Whatever, I say, be determined on these two
points (which, for the present, shall be set aside) the _other_ species
of idolatry is, without all doubt, chargeable on any Christian church
that shall adopt or acknowledge, in its religious addresses, another
mediator, besides Christ Jesus.
But the church of Rome (I do not say, in the private writings of her
divines, but) in the solemn forms of her ritual, _publicly professes_,
and, by her canons and councils, _authoritatively enjoyns_, the worship
of saints and angels, under the idea of mediators and intercessors: not
indeed in exclusion of Christ, as _one_, or, if you will, as _chief_
mediator, but in manifest defiance of his claim to be, the _sole_
mediator. This charge is truly and justly brought against that Church,
as it now stands, and hath stood, for many ages; and cannot, by any
subterfuge whatsoever, be evaded[218]. And therefore, to the other
characters of _Pride_ and _Intolerance_, which she takes to herself
with much complacency, she must, now, be content (whether she will or
no) to have that of DÆMON-WORSHIP, or ANTICHRISTIAN IDOLATRY, fastened
upon her.
Nor let the followers of that communion think to elude this charge, by
saying, _That they only request the saints, as we commonly do any good
man, to pray for them_[219]. False and disingenuous! _False_; because
their breviaries and litanies shew, that they supplicate the saints
to befriend them by their own inherent power, or to intercede for
them to the throne of God by virtue of their own personal merits[220],
in blasphemous derogation to the all-atoning and incommunicable
intercession of Jesus. _Disingenuous_, too; because they know very
well, that the question is concerning unseen and heavenly mediators
only, not men like ourselves, such as we live and converse with on
earth; whom we only admonish of their duty, and to whom we only do
ours, when we call upon them to exert an act of piety and common
charity in praying for their fellow-christians. Our meaning is but that
which the Apostle well expresses, when he would have us _consider one
another, to provoke unto love and to good works_[221]; and not at all
to supplicate our Christian brethren as powerful intercessors, in whose
meritorious virtues we confide, and to whom, as possessing a proper
interest in the Almighty, by the worth of their own persons, we commit
our dearest concerns, The forgiveness of our sins, and the salvation of
our souls.
“But this, it will be said, is a very defective, and even unfair,
account of the matter. We do more than admonish our brethren of their
duty, when we sollicit their prayers for us. We invite them directly,
and formally, to _intercede_ for us to the throne of Grace. We are
allowed, nay encouraged, to lay a stress on their intercession; and,
what is more, we are given to understand that such intercession,
especially if it be made by good men, will have weight and influence in
Heaven. What else is the meaning of the Apostle, when he assures us,
_That the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much_.
James v. 16.? And, if the prayer of _a righteous man_, much more the
prayer of glorified saints and angels.”
I have put the argument, I think, in all its force, and (because the
advocates of the papal cause affect to think it unanswerable) shall
examine it, with care.
“We apply to good Christians, or to those we esteem such, to intercede
for us by their prayers to Heaven.” We do so; and are encouraged in
this application, by the _example_, and by the _directions_ of the
Apostles. For I shall not take advantage of what some have conceived to
be the meaning of St. James, in the place alledged, where he attributes
so much to the prayer of, a righteous man, That the prayer, there
spoken of, is _the prayer of faith_, or a spiritual gift miraculously
conferred on the first teachers of the Gospel, and confined to their
ministry: I will not, I say, take advantage of this gloss; because,
whatever foundation it may seem to have in the context of that epistle,
I allow it to be clear from other places of the New Testament[222],
That the duty of Christians is to pray, that is, to _intercede_, for
each other.
But then I desire it may be observed,
1. What difference there is between desiring good men to pray for
us, in the Gospel sense of that duty; and desiring Saints and Angels
to pray for us, in the sense of the papal rituals. We request those
prayers, only as they shall be offered up in the name, and through the
merits, of the great, and properly speaking, sole intercessor; and we
look for no effect from them, but on that condition. The Church of
Rome addresses herself to Saints and Angels, as _intercessors_, by,
what we may call, their own right, by virtue of their own inherent
sanctity: Or, rather, she applies to them directly, as to _Saviours_,
for their proper and immediate help, and expects it from the supposed
privilege of their rank, or merits, independently of their _prayers_,
or, at least, of the _manner_ in which those prayers shall be presented
through the name of Jesus. The formal words of their Litanies shew,
that such is their meaning.
But they will say, that this condition of interceding, or saving,
through the merits of Christ, is implied, though not expressed. I reply
then,
2. That, admitting it to be so, there is, yet, the widest difference
between _praying_ to Saints and Angels to pray for us, though in the
Gospel forms of intercession; and merely _requesting_ good men to pray
for us, in those forms. The _latter_ address is made in a way remote
from all appearance of idolatry, and free from the suspicion of it:
The _former_, is preferred in the _place_, at the _time_, with the
_posture_, in the _language_, in short, with all the circumstances and
formalities of divine worship.
3. I observe, that, when we ask the prayers of men, we know that they
hear our address to them: We cannot even suppose thus much of Saints
and Angels, without ascribing to them the incommunicable attributes of
the Almighty.
Still, it may be insisted, That prayers, whether offered up to God by
men, or glorified spirits, are however to be considered in the light of
_Intercessions_; and that therefore, so far as we combat the practice
of saint-worship on that ground, Protestants, as well as Papists, when
they employ the prayers of others, are guilty of idolatry.
This, in truth, is the hinge, on which the question turns: And, to shew
the difference of the two cases, palpably and clearly, I say,
Fourthly, and lastly, That the Gospel, in permitting, or rather in
commanding us to ask the prayers of each other, justifies this sort of
intercession, and absolves it from the blame and guilt of idolatry. It
gives a sanction to this mode of mediating with God by his Saints, on
earth; and does not regard it as a practice that interferes with the
mediatorial office of Jesus, in Heaven.
The same Gospel, on the contrary, (I inquire not, for what reasons)
says not a word, from which we can infer, that any such address is
directed, or permitted, to be made to Angels or Spirits. It even
condemns all addresses of this kind, under the opprobrious name of
unauthorized, or WILL-WORSHIP[223]. Though we be allowed, then, to
have good men, in some sense, for our mediators or intercessors on
earth, we are not allowed to have any mediator or intercessor in the
tabernacle of heaven, but Jesus, the great high priest of Christians,
only. This last sort of intercession, by Angels and glorified Saints,
is against the spirit and letter of our religion. It is a practice,
which, not being enjoined, is forbidden; which, being disallowed, is
reprobated. In a word, It entrenches on the incommunicable honour and
prerogatives of the great, the appointed, the sole Mediator in Heaven,
seated at God’s right hand, _who ever liveth to make intercession for
us_[224]. It sets up new mediators, without, and against his leave: It
is, then, un-christian, and _idolatrous_.
Thus at length, I suppose, it appears indisputably, That we are neither
unreasonable, nor uncharitable, in charging IDOLATRY, as well as the
other two anti-christian vices of _pride_, and _intolerance_, to the
account of papal Rome.
V. The last prophetic mark of Antichrist, which I shall have time to
point out to you, and what perhaps you may esteem the most material of
all, is, _The_ TIME _in which that power is said to make its appearance
in the world_.
It hath been already observed[225], that the _chronology_ of the
prophecies is, for the most part, not defined with that exactness,
which we expect in historical compositions. It is commonly expressed
in terms that may be interpreted with some latitude; or, when the date
is more precisely delivered, we are still at a loss, in some respect
or other, before the event, in what manner to form our calculation.
However, the expression is not so loose and vague, but that we may
clearly apprehend _about_ what time the predicted event will come to
pass.
Thus, for instance, the season of Christ’s _coming into the world_ was
fixed by such circumstances as these—that it should be before the
total dissolution of the Jewish state—or while the second temple was
yet standing: And, when it was determinately foretold to be after the
expiration of _seventy weeks, from the going forth of the commandment
to return and to build Jerusalem_, still, besides the prophetic and
somewhat obscure sense of the word _weeks_, we cannot beforehand
calculate exactly _when_ these weeks commence[226], or in what term
they are to be accomplished. Yet, notwithstanding these uncertainties,
the Jews saw very clearly, and, from them, the rest of the world
conceived an expectation, that the person predicted was to appear in
that age, or _about_ that time, in which he did appear, and which, from
the tenour of the prophecies, they had computed would be the time of
his appearance.
In like manner, the season of Antichrist’s appearance in the world is
left to be collected from general intimations; and, when the duration
of his tyranny is limited to _twelve hundred and sixty days_, besides
that the expression, as before, is ænigmatical, we have no means of
fixing the commencement of that period so precisely, but that some
doubts may arise about it, till the accomplishment of the prophecy
shall give light and certainty to the computation. Yet still, as in the
former case, we have such _data_ to proceed upon in calculating the
reign of Antichrist, as may let us see _about_ what time it was to be
expected.
Thus much being premised, I have now only to remind you of what the
prophets expressly declare concerning the rise of Antichrist. The
eldest of these, the prophet Daniel, says it was to be in the time of
the _fourth_ kingdom, that is, of the Roman; which, for the convenience
of the prophetic calculations, is considered as subsisting, though
in a new form, under the ten kings, among whom it was to be divided.
He further tells us, that Antichrist was to arise from _among_, and
_after_, the ten kings; that is, we are to look for him _then_,
(and not before) when the Roman empire has undergone that change of
government[227].
Next, St. Paul, it seems, had told the Thessalonians, what it was
that, for a time, prevented the appearance of Antichrist: But that
information hath not been transmitted to us. However, he says to
them—_Ye know_ WHAT _with-holdeth that he might be revealed in his
time_: and further adds, HE, _who now letteth, will let, until he be
taken out of the way_[228].
Now, by putting these passages together, and by comparing them with
the predictions of Daniel, not we of these later times only, before
whom _the man of sin_ is supposed to be evidently displayed, but the
early fathers of the church, long before the events happened to which
these prophetic notices could be applied, clearly saw, or at least
generally conjectured, that the impediment, here mentioned, was the
then subsisting power of the Cæsarean government; which, they said, was
first to be taken away, and then Antichrist would be revealed[229].
Lastly, the Apostle St. John not only confirms the prophecies of
Daniel, that Antichrist should arise out of the ten kings, who were to
have the western empire shared out among them, but adds this remarkable
circumstance, That he should RIDE the ten kings[230]; which implies,
that he should _co-exist_ with them: And it further appears, that
he was to receive his whole power from them, and was finally to be
destroyed by them.
Now, turn to the history of the _fourth_ kingdom, and see how it
corresponds to these prophecies. Observe, when the western empire under
its Cæsarean head, was taken away; how it was, afterwards, dismembered
by the northern nations; by what degrees it fell at length, into _ten_,
that is, _many_ distinct, independent kingdoms; at what time this
partition was made, or rather fully settled and completed. From this
time, and not before, you are to look for Antichrist, now gradually
rearing himself up among the ten kings; and at length, in a condition,
by the power, which they gave to him, to _ride_, that is, to direct
and govern them. From this time, again, compute the 1260 years, the
predicted period of his government; and, keeping your eye all along on
the ecclesiastical and civil state of our western world (the predicted
theatre of all these transactions) see, if you can help concluding,
I do not say at what precise time, but _about_ what time, Antichrist
appeared; see, if the _commencement_ of his reign be not so far
determined as that you may be certain of its being long since past; and
see, if very much, at least, of that allotted _period_, through which
his dominion was to continue, according to the prophecies, be not, by
the evident attestation of history, now run out.
To DRAW, then, what hath been said on the several marks of Antichrist,
to a point. Consider, within _what part_ of the world, he was to
appear; in _what seat_ or throne, he was to be established; of _what
kind_, his sovereignty was to be; with _what attributes_, he was to be
invested; in _what season_, or _about what time_, and for _how long
a time_, he was to reign and prosper: Consider these FIVE obvious
characters of Antichrist, which the prophets have distinctly set
forth, and which, from them, I have successively held up to you: And,
then, compare them with the correspondent characters, which you find
inscribed, by the pen of authentic history, on a certain power, sprung
up in the West; seated in the city of Rome; calling himself the Vicar
of Christ; yet _full of names of blasphemy_, that is, stigmatized with
those crimes, which Christianity, as such, holds most opprobrious,
the crimes of tyrannic dominion, of persecution, and even Idolatry;
and lastly, now subsisting in the world, though with evident symptoms
of decay, after a long reign, whose rise and progress can be traced,
and whose duration, hitherto, is uncontradicted by any prophecy: Put,
I say, all these correspondent marks together, and see if they do
not furnish, if not an absolute demonstration, yet a high degree of
probability, that apostate papal Rome is the very Antichrist foretold.
At least, you will admit that these correspondencies are signal enough
to merit your attention, and even to justify your pains in looking
further into so curious and interesting a subject. Ye will say to
yourselves, That the prophecies concerning Antichrist deserve at least
to be considered with care, since in so many striking particulars, they
appear, on the face of them, to have been completed.
This _conclusion_, it is presumed, is a reasonable one: And the end of
this discourse will be answered, if ye are, at length, prevailed upon
to _draw_ this conclusion.
SERMON XII.
USES OF THIS INQUIRY INTO THE PROPHECIES.
REV. xxii. 7.
_Behold, I come quickly: Blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the
prophecy of this book._
Before we engage in a work of time and difficulty, we naturally ask,
“CUI BONO, to what considerable end and purpose, are our labours to be
referred?”
Although it may, then, be presumed, that enough hath been said on the
prophecies to excite a reasonable desire of looking further into them,
and even to produce a general persuasion, that they have been, or may
be, understood; yet, it may quicken your attention to this argument,
and support your industry in the prosecution of it, to set before you
the USES, which may result from a full and final conviction (if such
should be the issue of your inquiries), That these prophecies are not
intelligible only, but have, in many instances, been rightly applied,
and clearly fulfilled.
These USES are very many. I shall collect, only, _two or three_ of the
more important, for your consideration.
Though every period of prophecy be instructive, that which takes in the
great events and revolutions, which have come to pass in the _Christian
Church_, is, for obvious reasons, more especially interesting to us,
who live in these latter ages of the world.
Of the numerous predictions, contained in either Testament, which,
it is presumed, respect these events, the most considerable by far,
because the most minute and circumstantial, are those of St. John in
the _Revelations_; which treat professedly of such things as were
to befall _the servants of Jesus_[231], from the prophet’s own days,
down to that awful period, when all the mysterious councils of God,
in regard to the Christian dispensation, shall be finally shut up in
the day of judgment. To these predictions, then, a more particular
attention is due, the rather because they have been fulfilling from
the time of their delivery—_behold, I come quickly_—and, above all,
because a _blessing_ is pronounced on those, who keep, that is, who
observe, who study and contemplate, _the sayings of this book_.
Assuredly, then, this study will be rewarded with signal benefits. And
one sees immediately:
I. In the first place, that no small benefit must arise to those, who
admit the completion of these prophecies, so far, I mean, as the tenour
of the book makes it probable that they have been completed, _from
the awful sense, which this conviction must needs give them of the
Christian dispensation itself_.