πτῶμα, ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί.—Meaning by _eagles_, the standards
of the Roman army.—Some writers of name have, indeed, observed,
that this is only a _proverbial_ expression. True: but proverbial
prophecies are often fulfilled in the strict literal sense of the
expression; as Grotius well observes on Matth. xxvi. 23. hîc quoque
accidit, quod in _multis aliis vaticiniis_, ut verba—non tantùm
secundùm proverbialem loquendi modum, sed etiam secundùm _exactissimam
verborum significationem_ implerentur.—If the reader calls to mind
the prediction of our Lord, as it is elsewhere expressed, without a
figure—_when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with_ ARMIES [Luke, xxi.
20]—and compares it with the _event_, he will hardly make a doubt
whether _eagles_, in those figurative predictions, which respect the
same subject, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem, were not intended
by our Lord to denote, the ROMAN armies.
[78] —debellare _superbos_. Virg.
[79] Assuredly this prophecy was not in the number of those, of which
it hath been said—_The prophecy is not occasioned by the event, but
the event by the prophecy—L’evenement n’est pas predit parcequ’il
arrivera; mais il arrive parcequ’il a été predit._ ROUSSEAU, _Nouv.
Hel._ t. iv. p. 314. n. Neuf. 1764.
[80] Matth. xvi. 28.
[81] Matth. xxiv. 34.
[82] Luke xxi. 20.
[83] Luke xxi. 18. Acts ii. 21. Mark xiii. 20.
[84] See the learned Bishop Newton’s _Dissertations on the Prophecies_,
vol. ii, p. 268. n.
[85] Deut. xxviii.
[86] 1 Thess. ii. 16.
[87] Luke xxi. 22. 24.
[88] Rom. xi. 25.
[89] Jer. xlvi. 28.
[90] Isai. i. 21. Ezek. vi. 8.
[91] Lev. xxvi. 44.
[92] Hear the profound and reflecting M. Pascal—L’etat où l’on voit
les Juifs est une grande preuve de la Religion. Car c’est une chose
étonnante de voir ce peuple _subsister_ depuis tant d’années, & de
le voir _toujours miserable_—et, quoique il soit contraire, D’ETRE
MISERABLE, & DE SUBSISTER, il subsiste neanmoins toujours malgré sa
misère. PENSEES, p. 115.
[93] —Multò minus nomen criminandum, in captivitate sacratorum suorum,
qui supernam patriam veraci fide expectantes, _etiam in suis sedibus
peregrinos se esse noverunt_. _Aug. De Civ. Dei_, l. i. 15.
[94] Jer. xlvi. 28.
[95] Ps. ii. 8.
[96] Mal. i. 2.
[97] Is. xlix. 6.
[98] Mark xvi. 15.
[99] The reader may see many of them collected, and the general
argument from them well inforced, by Mr. Bullock, in his VINDICATION,
Part II.
[100] As in the case of _Mahometanism_, for instance.
[101] What the Philosopher Celsus thought of such a project, we learn
from a curious passage in Origen. It being usual with the Christians
of that time, as of every other, _to pray for the conversion of the
whole world to the Christian faith_, the philosopher laughs at the
extravagance of this petition. He observes upon it, ὅτι ὁ τοῦτο
οἰόμενος οἶδεν οὐδέν. The words are not easily translated. But the
_meaning_ of them is, That he regarded an universal agreement in one
mode of religious belief, as a perfect chimæra: and the _turn_ of the
words is so contrived, as to express the utmost contempt of those, who,
in their supreme ignorance of mankind, could entertain so senseless an
idea. _Contr. Celsum_, l. viii. _sub. fin._
[102] Matth. xxiii. 15.
[103] Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a _new
covenant_ with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not
according to the covenant that I made with their fathers—but this
shall be my covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after
those days, saith the Lord, _I will put my Law in their inward parts,
and write it in their hearts_, &c. Jer. xxxi. 31-33. See also Jer. iii.
16.
[104] For behold, _I create new heavens and a new earth_: and the
_former shall not be remembered nor come into mind_. Is. lxv. 17.
[105] The _Gentiles_ shall see thy righteousness, and all Kings, thy
glory: And thou shalt be _called by a new name_, which the mouth of the
Lord shall name. Is. lxii. 2.
[106] Is. lx. 22.
[107] Matth. xiii. 31, 32.
[108] Si enim et hostes _exertos_, non tantùm vindices occultos,
agere vellemus, _deesset nobis vis numerorum et copiarum_? _Tertull.
Apologet._ c. 37.
[109] Could it be _foreseen_, that nothing of this sort would happen?
When the _Reformation_ was set on foot in Germany, Luther and his
adherents resolved to carry it on in the spirit of the Gospel, that
is, by _pacific measures_. But how soon did passion and policy strike
in, to drive them from this purpose! The Catholics were intolerant:
the Reformed grew powerful: and then, what was too naturally to be
expected, followed.
If it be said, that the Gospel hath not been always propagated,
_without force_; I acknowledge, it has not: but then I observe, 1. that
it was incontestably so propagated, till the conversion of the Roman
empire; in which event, alone, the prophecies appear to have had a
reasonable completion. 2. that the _force employed_, has generally been
the force of one Christian sect, directed against some other (in which
scandalous contentions the prophecies have no concern), not in the
propagation of Christianity itself in unbelieving countries. 3. that
the _way of force_, when professedly used against unbelievers, though,
in _some_ cases, it has contributed to the enlargement of Christ’s
kingdom, has yet, in _others_ (where, too, the utmost force and zeal
were combined) very signally failed of success; of which the _crusades
against the Mahometans_ afford a striking instance: and 4. lastly,
that we expect the _final universal_ prevalence of the Christian faith
from the same spiritual arms only, which were first employed with such
success in the propagation of it.
[110] An eminent writer, with the view, indeed, of disgracing the
Reformation, hath set this matter in a very just light: “Que nos
freres, says he, ouvrent donc les yeux; qu’ils les jettent sur
l’ancienne Eglise, qui durant tant de siécles d’une persecution si
cruelle ne s’est jamais échapée, ni un seul moment, ni dans un seul
homme, & qu’on a vûë aussi soûmise sous Diocletien, et même sous Julien
l’apostat, lorsqu’elle remplissoit deja toute la terre, que sous Neron
& sous Domitien, lorsqu’elle ne faisoit que de naitre: C’EST LA QU’ON
VOIT VERITABLEMENT LE DOIGT DE DIEU.”
_Hist. des Variations_, l. x. c. 53.
_The finger of God_, as the learned writer says, was indeed conspicuous
in this conduct of the primitive Christians, because it fulfilled the
prophecies (so unlikely to be fulfilled) concerning the _manner_ in
which Christianity was to obtain an establishment in the world. If
the conduct of the _reformed_ had not this merit, it was because the
prophecies did not extend to the reformation of Christian religion, but
to the introduction and first settlement of it. The agents, in this
last work of Providence, were therefore left to the natural influence
of their passions, and they acted too frequently as those passions
impelled them.
For the rest, how far the _general_ precepts of the Gospel require
a passive submission and non-resistance to outrageous intolerance,
whether absolutely, and in all cases, is a point of nice discussion;
in which I take no part, at present, because I am not now making the
apology of the _reformed_, but shewing the completion of the prophecies
concerning the _propagators_ of Christianity: and the wonder to see
them so punctually completed, is not lessened, but increased, by
supposing, that the precepts of the Gospel leave mankind to the free
use of their natural rights, in the case of extreme violence and
injustice.
[111] _The vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall
speak, and not lye: though it tarry, wait for it, because it shall
surely come, it will not tarry._ Habakkuk, ii. 3.
[112] By the word _Tyranny_, here and elsewhere in these discourses, as
applied to the Pope, I would be understood to mean, that _super-eminent
dominion_, which he exercised, or claimed a _right_ of exercising, over
the princes and states of his communion, in all affairs both temporal
and spiritual.—I use the word (somewhat improperly, perhaps) for
the sake of brevity, as I know of no other single term, that so well
expresses my meaning.
[113] What is here said of the scriptural division of _time_, with
regard to the affairs of the _Church_, is enough for my purpose.
There is another division of time, in the prophetic scriptures, with
regard to the _kingdoms of the world_; concerning which the reader may
consult BISHOP KIDDER’S _Dem. of the Messiah_, Part iii. ch. ix.; and
especially Mr. MEDE’S _Apostasy of the latter times_, ch. xi.
[114] Matth. xxiv. 24. Mark xiii. 21.
[115] 1 Ep. John, iv. 3.
[116] Ἀντίχριϛος—ἀντι, in the sense either of _pro_, or _contra_.
[117] Grotius says, “Sicut _Anticæsarem_ dicimus qui contra Cæsarem
se Cæsarem vult dici atque Cæsar haberi, sic _Antichristus_ est qui
se vero Christo opponit _eo modo_ ut ipse Christus haberi velit.”
OP. t. iv. p. 490.—The learned commentator did not reflect, that
words are not always used according to the strict import of their
etymologies. _False Christs_, we will say, are, in the strict sense
of the word, _Antichrists_. But the question is, in _what_ sense
this word is used of the person called, by way of eminence, THE
ANTICHRIST. This must be collected from the attributes given to him
in the prophecies themselves, not from the rigorous etymology of the
term. The case was plainly this. St. John is speaking of the _false
Christs_, who had appeared in his time; and, to disgrace them the
more effectually in the minds of those to whom he writes, he brands
them with the name of _Antichrists_: not so much respecting the exact
sense of the word, as the ideas of aversion, which, he knew, it would
excite. For the tradition of the church concerning _Antichrist_,
had made this appellation, of all others, the most opprobrious, and
hateful.—Besides, it is not so clear, as Grotius supposes, that the
strict sense of the word, _Antichristus_, must be—_is, qui se vero
Christo opponit eo modo ut ipse Christus haberi velit_. Cæsar, who
generally expressed himself with exact propriety, thought fit, on a
certain occasion, to assume the name and character of, ANTICATO. Was
it Cæsar’s purpose to say, or was it his ambition to pretend, “_that
he opposed himself to the true Cato_, EO MODO _ut ipse_ CATO _haberi
vellet_?”
[118] Eusebius mentions, JUDAS, H. E. l. vi. c. 2; and DIONYSIUS, E. H.
l. vii. c. 10.—_Others_, seemed to expect that Antichrist would appear
as the Messiah of the Jews; but in the person of a Roman Emperor; as
will be explained presently. See the next note.
[119] See many citations to this purpose in Dr. Lardner’s _Cred._ p.
ii. v. p. 210, 11, 12.
[120] Jerom, in Dan. vii. Mede, p. 657.
[121] Quisquis se universalem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione
suâ Antichristum præcurrit. GREG. M. Op. Ep. xxx. l. vi. _Par._ 1533.
[122] In hâc ejus superbiâ, quid aliud nisi propinqua jam Antichristi
esse tempora designatur? Ep. xxxiv. l. iv.
[123] With all his merits, Gregory the Great, it is to be feared, had
some Antichristian marks upon him; and his adversary of the East might
have gone some way towards _fixing_ them upon his _Grandeur_, if he had
but observed, that Antichrist, whoever he was, and whensoever to appear
in the world, is clearly marked out in the prophecies, as having his
seat in _old Rome_.
[124] A. 991.
[125] Quid hunc, reverendi patres, in sublimi solio residentem, veste
purpureâ et aureâ radiantem; quid hunc, inquam, esse censetis? Nimirum,
si charitate destituitur, solâque scientiâ inflatur et extollitur,
ANTICHRISTUS est, _in templo Dei sedens, et se ostendens tanquam sit
Deus_. USSER. _de Christian. Eccl. successione & statu_, c. ii. p. 36.
Lond. 1613.—ILLYRICI _Cat. Test. Ver._ p. 1558. _Officin. Jacob. Stoër
et Jacob. Chouël._—This Arnulph, Bishop of Orleans, was esteemed, in
his day, the wisest and most eloquent of all the Gallican prelates.
Arnulphus—de quo sic initio ejus synodi scriptum est—_Inter omnes
Galliarum episcopos sapientiâ et eloquentiâ clarissimus habebatur_. Ib.
[126] “Ecclesiam vanitatis, & SEDEM SATANÆ vocabat.” USSER. _de
Christian. Eccl. succes. & statu_, c. 7. s. xxiv. p. 196.—In
Apocalypsin scripsisse testatur Bostonius Buriensis. CAVE, H. L. vol.
ii. p. 131. _Oxon._ 1743.
[127] Plerique omnes boni, aperti, justi, ingenui, simplices, tum
imperium Antichristi cœpisse, quod ea quæ Christus servator noster
tot annos ante nobis cantavit, evenisse eo tempore cernebant, memoriæ
literarum prodidêre. ANNAL. BOIORUM, l. v. p. 591. Ingolstad. 1554.
[128] CAVE, H. L. vol. ii. p. 258. Conc. Flor. 1104. USSER. _De Christ.
Eccl. succ. & stat._ c. v. s. v. p. 109.
[129] MINISTRI CHRISTI SUNT, ET SERVIUNT ANTICHRISTO [_Serm. sup.
Cantic._ xxxiii.]—It is true, by Antichrist, he seems not to mean the
Pope, but, in general, an evil principle, which then domineered in the
church. Yet he refers us to the famous passage in the first Epistle
to the Thessalonians, ch. ii. And he tells us in his 56th epistle,
that he had heard one Norbert, a man of exemplary piety, say, That
Antichrist would be revealed in that age. Hence it seems probable,
that some one person or power was in his eye. After all, he says, that
Norbert’s reasons did not satisfy him. Yet, in another epistle, he
asserts expressly—Bestia illa de Apocalypsi, cui datum est os loquens
blasphemias, et bellum gerere cum sanctis, PETRI CATHEDRAM OCCUPAT,
tanquam leo paratus ad prædam. Ep. cxxv: which was, in other words,
to call the Pope, Antichrist. It is evident that St. Bernard applied
the prophecies in the Revelation to the successor of St. Peter.—I
mention these things so particularly, to shew, what his sentiments on
this head really were; which have been misrepresented by hasty writers,
who transcribe from each other, without examining, themselves, the
authorities, they quote.
[130] CAVE, H. L. v. ii. 278. ROG. DE HOVEDEN, ANNAL. _Pars Post._
p. 681. Ed. Franc. 1601.—In this age [XIIth], was composed a very
remarkable tract on the subject of Antichrist, which may be seen in
Mede’s Works, p. 721.—Mr. Mede supposes, and seems indeed to have
proved, that the _true_ doctrine of Antichrist was, and was intended to
be, a mystery, or secret, till the 12th century. Whence it follows that
the testimonies, hitherto alledged, are only passionate or declamatory
exaggerations, or to be esteemed, as he says, _pro parabolicè et_ κάτ’
αὔξησιν _dictis, declamatorum more_. _Works_, p. 722.
I admit the truth of the observation: but hold, that the _use_ of
the deduction, here made, is not in the least affected by it. For
my purpose in giving this catalogue of witnesses to the doctrine of
Antichrist, was not to _justify_ that doctrine, in the _true_, that is,
Protestant sense of it (for then, not only the preceding testimonies,
but even some of the following, would have been omitted) but merely
to shew that the general, at least, and confused idea of some such
doctrine did, in fact, _subsist_ in the ancient Christian church. That
what idea they had of this doctrine was founded on the _prophecies_, is
clear from the terms in which they express themselves. And, though the
doctrine itself was very imperfectly conceived, and inconsequentially
applied by them, still their language shews that they had some notion
of _a corrupt spiritual power, which was_, in their sense of the
prophets, _to domineer in the church of Rome_: whence I draw this
conclusion (for the sake of which, this whole deduction is made), That
the present application of the prophecies concerning Antichrist to
papal Rome, is not wholly new and unauthorized; as the prejudice, I am
here combating, supposeth it to be.
[131] VITRINGA in Apoc. p. 747. Amst. 1719. USSER. De Eccl. succ. &
stat. c. 6 and 8. THUANUS, l. vi. s. 16. vol. i. p. 221. Ed. Buckley.
[132] See, especially, the famous speech of Everhard, bishop of
Saltzbourg, at the assembly of Ratisbonne, in the time of Gregory the
IXth; inserted at large in Aventinus, _Ann. Boior._ l. vii. p. 684. The
following extracts from it will be thought curious. Hildebrandus ante
annos centum atque septuaginta primus specie religionis _Antichristi_
imperii fundamenta jecit. p. 684.
Flamines illi _Babyloniæ_ [meaning the Bishops of Rome] soli regnare
cupiunt, ferre parem non possunt, non desistent donec omnia pedibus
suis conculcaverint, atque _in templo Dei sedeant, extollanturque supra
omne id, quod colitur_. Ib.
Nova consilia sub pectore volutat, ut proprium sibi constituat
imperium, _leges commutat_, suas sancit; contaminat, diripit, spoliat,
fraudat, occidit, perditus homo ille (_quem Antichristum vocare
solent_) in cujus fronte _contumeliæ nomen_ scriptum est, “Deus sum,
errare non possum,” _in templo Dei sedet_, longè latéque dominatur.
_Ib._
—_Reges decem pariter existunt_—_Decem Cornua_—_Cornuque
parvulum_—Quid hâc prophetiâ apertius? p. 685.
[133] MATTH. PARIS, ad ann. 1253. p. 874. ed. Watts, 1640.
[134] Purgat. 32.
[135] Epistolarum sine titulo Liber. Ep. xvi. p. 130. Basil.
1581.—Many strokes in this epistle are, to the last degree, severe
and caustic. Addressing himself to Rome, “Illa equidem ipsa es, says
he, quam in spiritu sacer vidit Evangelista.—Populi et gentes et
linguæ, aquæ sunt super quas meretrix sedes; recognosce habitum. Mulier
circumdata purpurâ, et coccino, et inaurata auro, et lapide pretioso,
et margaritis, habens poculum aureum in manu suâ, plenum abominatione
et immunditiâ fornicationis ejus.—Audi reliqua. Et vidi (inquit)
mulierem ebriam de sanguine sanctorum, et de sanguine martyrum Jesu.
Quid siles?”—And so goes on to apply the prophecies of the Revelation
to the church of Rome, in terms that furnish out a good comment on the
famous verse in one of his poems—
_Gia Roma, hor Babylonia false è ria_—
Numberless passages in the writings of Petrarch speak of Rome, under
the name of _Babylon_. But an equal stress is not to be laid on all of
these. It should be remembered, that the Popes, in Petrarch’s time,
resided at Avignon; greatly to the disparagement of themselves, as
he thought, and especially of Rome; of which this singular man was
little less than idolatrous. The situation of the place, surrounded by
waters, and his splenetic concern for the _exiled_ Church (for under
this idea, he painted to himself the Pope’s migration to the banks of
Avignon) brought to his mind the condition of the Jewish church in
the Babylonian captivity. And this parallel was all, perhaps, that he
meant to insinuate in most of those passages. But, when he applies the
prophecies to Rome, as to the _Apocalyptic_ Babylon (as he clearly does
in the epistle under consideration) his meaning is not equivocal: and
we do him but justice to give him an honourable place among the TESTES
VERITATIS.
[136] See the catalogue of his works in Cave’s Hist. Lit. vol. ii. App.
p. 63; in which is the following book of Dialogues. Dialogorum libri
quatuor; quorum—quartus Romanæ Ecclesiæ sacramenta, ejus pestiferam
vocationem, ANTICHRISTI REGNUM, fratrum fraudulentam originem atque
eorum hypocrisim, variaque nostro ævo scitu dignissima, perstringit.
[137] Mandantes omnibus, &c.—_tempus quoque præfixum futurorum
malorum, vel_ ANTICHRISTI ADVENTUM—_prædicare, vel asserere, nequaquam
præsumant_. BIN. CONC. _Lateran._ v. _sub Leone_ X. _Sess._ xi. _p._ 632.
[138] M. d’Alembert, indeed, goes further. He acquaints us, that this
_charge_ is now out of date, and that nobody, either within or without
the Romish communion, makes it any longer. For, speaking of a public
inscription at Geneva, in which _the Pope is called Antichrist_, he
animadverts on this disgrace of that Protestant people, and very kindly
suggests to them what their improved sentiments and language should be
on that subject. _As for the Catholics_ (says he, very gravely,) _the
Pope is regarded by them, as the Head of the true Church: By sage and
moderate Protestants, he is seen in the light of a sovereign prince,
whom they respect, though they do not obey him: But, in an age like
this_, HE IS NO LONGER ANTICHRIST IN THE OPINION OF ANYBODY. “Pour
les Catholiques, le Pape est le chef de la veritable Eglise; pour les
Protestants sages & modérés, c’est un Souverein qu’ils respectent comme
Prince sans lui obéir: _mais dans un siécle tel que nôtre, il n’est
plus l’Antichrist pour personne_.” Encyclopedie, Art. GENEVE.—If the
present age be, here, truly characterized, it was high time, or rather
it was too late, to found this Protestant Lecture.
[139] Rompons leurs liens, dit-il, et rejettons leur joug de dessus nos
têtes. _Bossuet, H. V._ l. i. c. 26.
[140] _Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her
sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues._ Rev. xviii. 4.
[141] Il [Luther] condamnoit les Bohemiens qui s’etoient separez de
nôtre communion, et protestoit qu’il ne lui arriveroit jamais de tomber
dans _un semblable Schisme_. _Bossuet, Hist. des Variat._ l. i. p.
21. _Par._ 1740. And again, p. 28; Apres, dit-il [Luther,] que j’eus
surmonté tous les argumens qu’on proposoit, il en restoit un dernier
qu’à peine je pus surmonter par le secours de Jesus Christ avec une
extrême difficulté & beaucoup d’angoisse; _c’est qu’il falloit écouter
l’Eglise_.—One sees for what purpose M. Bossuet quotes these passages,
and others of the same kind, from the writings of Luther. However, they
shew very clearly how deep an impression the idea of Schism had made on
the mind even of this intrepid Reformer.
[142] _Contra Bullam Antichristi_—a tract of Luther, so called,
against the Bull of Leo X.
[143] Luther reconnoit après la rupture ouverte, que dans les
commencemens il étoit _comme au desespoir_—
_Bossuet, H. V._ c. 26.
[144] Hor. 1 Ep. vi. 15.
[145] Grotius was more than a great, he was a fashionable man. No
wonder therefore that, under the influence of two such prejudices, his
opinions should find followers; which yet they would scarce have found
with us, if the political state of that time had not been a _third_
prejudice in their favour. See the Bishop of Gloucester’s Sermon, _On
the rise of Antichrist_.
[146] “The folly of interpreters has been, to foretell times and things
by this prophecy, as if God designed to make them prophets.” _Sir I.
Newton_, p. 251.
[147] “God gave this, and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not
to gratify men’s curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things;
but that, after they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted by
the event; and his own providence, not the interpreter’s, be then
manifested thereby to the world.” _Sir I. Newton_, p. 251.
[148] “’Tis a part of this prophecy, that it should not be understood
before the last age of the world; and therefore it makes for the credit
of the prophecy, that it is not yet understood.” _Sir I. Newton_, p.
251.
[149] St. Jerom, who lived in this time, speaks in the very terms, here
supposed, _Romanus orbis_ RUIT. Ep. iii.
[150] Isai. lxv. 17.—2 Pet. iii. 4. 13.
[151] Rev. x. 7.
[152] Daniel xii. 10.
[153] Mede, More, Daubuz, Vitringa, and, above all, the learned Founder
of this Lecture.
[154] Hence, the allusion of our great poet,
—or from behind the moon
In dim eclipse disastrous twilight sheds
On half the nations, and _with fear of change
Perplexes monarchs_—P. L. i. 596.
[155] See these two works, published together, under the title of
_Artemidori Daldiani et Achmetis Sereimi F. Oneirocritica_, by Nicolaus
Rigaltius. _Lutet._ 1603.
[156] Non enim credo, _nullo percepto_ aut cæteros artifices versari in
suo munere, aut eos, qui divinatione utantur, futura prædicere. _Cic.
de Fato_, c. 6.
[157] Ezekiel xiii. 9.
[158] See Dr. Lancaster’s _Symbolical_ and _Alphabetical Dictionary_,
prefixed to his abridgment of the Commentary on the Revelations, by Mr.
Daubuz.
[159] See this objection urged by Mr. Collins in his _Grounds and
Reasons_, &c. p. 220. Lond. 1737.
[160] Jeremiah xxxiv. 3.
[161] Ezek. xii. 13.
[162] See Grotius on Matth. xxvi. 23.
[163] As to the _authority_ of this extraordinary book (although the
discussion of this point be foreign to my present purpose) it may
be proper to acquaint such persons, as have not made the inquiry
for themselves, and are perhaps incapable of making it, with the
sentiments, which our ablest writers have entertained of it.
Mr. Mede, a capable inquirer, if there ever was any, says roundly—“The
Apocalypse hath more human (not to speak of _divine_) authority, than
any other book of the New Testament besides, even from the time it was
first delivered.” _Works_, p. 602.