Volume 1 — SERMON VII. PROPHECIES CONCERNING ANTICHRIST. 1 Ep. John ii. 18.

—Ye have heared that Antichrist shall come—

Among the more remarkable prophecies concerning the Christian Church, there are several, which describe the rise, progress, and downfal of a certain Power, represented under various symbols or images, and distinguished by many appellations; but more especially known by the name of Antichrist.

These prophecies come now, in the order of this Lecture, to be considered. The subject is, in a high degree, curious and important; but of no easy discussion: not so much on the account of any peculiar difficulty in the prophecies themselves, as from the prejudice of party in explaining them, and still more, from the general prejudice that lies against every attempt to explain them.

To make my way through these obstructions, I shall begin with laying before you a clear and distinct state of the question itself, which is chiefly agitated by inquirers into these prophecies.

It is admitted, that many predictions in the Old and New Testament, particularly in the book of Daniel, in St. Paul’s Epistles, and in the Revelations of St. John, clearly point out a very extraordinary power, which was to manifest itself in the latter times, that is, in the times subsequent to the introduction of Christianity. The characters, by which this power (acknowledged by all under the name of Antichrist) is chiefly distinguished, are those of Tyranny112, Idolatry, and Intolerance. And, to abridge our trouble in searching after this three-headed monster, we are directed by the prophets to look for him within the boundaries of what is properly called, the Roman Empire, and even in the city of Rome itself.

Thus far there is no dispute. The only question is, To what Roman power, exhibiting those characters, the prophecies are to be applied. And even this question is reduced within narrow limits. For TWO Powers only have subsisted in Rome, from the Christian æra to the present times (within which period we are, again, allowed to expect the reign of Antichrist); the Roman Emperor, in the first place; and, afterwards, the Roman Pontifs. So that, on the whole, the single point in debate is merely this, Whether Imperial, or Papal Rome, be that Antichristian Power, which the prophets foretold. The church of Rome holds, for obvious reasons, that the Imperial power is the object of the prophecies: the Protestants have, on the contrary, their reasons for maintaining, that Papal Rome is that power, which the prophecies had in view, and in which alone they are truly and properly verified.

This, then, is the meaning of that famous inquiry concerning Antichrist: and I must desire you to keep your attention steadily fixed on the question, as here stated; while I endeavour to furnish you with the proper means of deciding upon it.

The obvious method of doing this, would be, To lay before you, directly, the prophecies themselves, and to examine them by the light of sober criticism, and authentic history. But, because it is no new or difficult thing to misrepresent facts, and to misinterpret scripture, to pervert, in short, these two instruments of truth to any ends, which prejudice hath in view; and because I know how natural it is for you to suspect such management in the present case, where the zeal of party is supposed, on either side, to exclude, or over-power, the love of truth; for these reasons, it may be convenient to take a larger compass, and, by a previous historical deduction of this controversy, to let you see in what light it has been regarded, through the several ages of the Christian Church.

I. The first account, we meet with in scripture, of the power in question, I mean, under his proper name of Antichrist, is in the first epistle of St. John, from which the text is taken. The whole passage runs thus—Little children, it is the last time: And, as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

To understand these words, we must call to mind what hath been already, more than once, observed concerning the scriptural division of time into two great portions, The FORMER, and LATTER times. By the former, is meant the times preceding the Christian æra; by the latter, the times subsequent to it. Correspondent to this partition of time, is the double advent of Christ, of which I before gave a distinct idea. His first advent was, when he came in the flesh, at Jerusalem: his second advent to be understood of his coming in his kingdom, through all the ages of the Christian Church.

But though the latter times, in the general sense of scripture, be thus comprehensive, they are further subdivided into other constituent portions, in which some particular state of Christ’s kingdom is administered, and within which it is completed. In reference to this subordinate division of time in the Christian dispensation, the coming of Christ is, also, proportionably multiplied. He comes in each division; that is, as oft as he thinks fit to interpose by any signal act of his power and providence. The whole period, in which any distinct state of his kingdom is carrying on, is likewise called the latter time; and the concluding part of that period is distinguished by the name of the last hour: as if the whole of each period were considered as one day; and the close of each period, as the end, or last hour, of that day.

Thus, the time that elapsed from Christ’s ascension to the destruction of Jerusalem, being one of the subdivisions, before mentioned, is called the latter times; and the eve of its destruction, is called the last hour. He was coming through the whole time: he came in the end of it. And the like use of these terms is to be made, in other instances. We are to apply them in the same manner to the reign of Antichrist—to the Millennium—to the day of judgment. Each of these states, into which the latter times, or the times of Christianity, are divided, is likewise spoken of under the idea of the latter times; and the season, in which each is drawing to an end, is the last hour of that state113.

Thus much being premised, it is easy to give a just exposition of the text. Little children, it is the last time, or hour—that is, the destruction of Jerusalem is at hand; as indeed it followed very soon after the date of this Epistle. And, as ye have heared that Antichrist shall come—that, in some future period, called the last times, an hostile power, which we know by the name of Antichrist, shall arise and prevail in the world, even now, we may see the commencement of that power; for, there are many Antichrists; many persons, now, appear in the spirit of that future Antichrist, and deserve his name: whereby, indeed, we know that it is the last hour: for Christ himself had made the appearance of false Christs and false prophets, that is, of Antichrists, to be one of the signs by which that hour should be distinguished114.

The meaning of the whole passage, then, is clearly this: “That the appearance of false Christs and false Prophets (of which there were many, according to our Lord’s prediction, in St. John’s time) indicated the arrival of that hour, that was to be fatal to the Jewish state: and that they were, at the same time, the types and forerunners of a still more dreadful, power, which should be fully revealed in the latter times, in a future period, when that calamity was past.” For the truth of the assertion, That such a power should arise in the Christian church, he appeals to a tradition, then current among the disciples: and his hated name of Antichrist is here applied, by way of anticipation, to the false prophets of that time; as possessing much of his character, and acting with his spirit.

Hence we see the meaning of the word, Antichrist; which stands for a person or power, actuated with a spirit opposite to that of Christ. And so indeed the Apostle explains himself, in another place of this very Epistle. For, speaking of certain false teachers, who preached up a doctrine, contrary to that of the Gospel, he adds—“This is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world115.” And I lay the greater stress on this observation, because the etymology of the word, Antichrist, makes it capable of two different meanings. For it may either signify one, who assumes the place and office of Christ, or one, who maintains a direct enmity and opposition to him116. But the latter, is the sense in which the Apostle useth this term; although it be true that, in the former sense, it very well suits the Bishop of Rome, who calls himself the Vicar of Christ, as well as the successor of St. Peter. Nor can there be any difficulty in fixing the charge of Antichristianism, in the sense of an enmity and opposition to Christ, on the Roman Pontif (though I know how absurd the attempt seems to the writers on that side); for, to merit this charge, it is not necessary that he should formally reject Christ, which undoubtedly he does not, but that he should act in defiance to the true genius and character of Christ’s religion: a charge, which may be evidently made good against him.

In short, as the word, Christ, is frequently used in the Apostolic writings for the doctrine of Christ; in which sense we are said to put on Christ, to grow in Christ, to learn Christ, and in other instances: So Antichrist, in the abstract, may be taken for a doctrine subversive of the Christian; and when applied to a particular man, or body of men, it denotes one, who sets himself against the spirit of that doctrine117.

In this last sense, the word Antichrist is clearly employed by St. John: and from his example, the word grew into general use in the Christian church; and is so to be understood, whenever mention is made of Antichrist by the primitive fathers, or any other ecclesiastical writers.

II. I am now to shew in what manner the prophecies concerning Antichrist, or a person or power, so called, and, though variously described, always considered under the idea of an adversary to the true doctrine of Christ, have been construed and applied by many eminent members of the Christian Church, in all ages.

1. When the canon of scripture was formed, and new in the hands of the faithful, the prophecies concerning Antichrist were too remarkable not to take their early attention. They accordingly cite these prophecies in their apologies and commentaries, or refer to them, very frequently. But one thing is singular. Though Antichrist be every where spoken of in the prophecies as a persecuting power, and though the Christian church then was, and so continued to be for near three centuries, in a state of persecution under the Roman emperors, yet this opprobrious name was not usually given to their persecutors. I do not say, that none of the early Christian writers ever applied that character to the Emperors. Some few of them, in a fit of zeal and resentment, did118. But the most, and the ablest of the Fathers, were clearly of another opinion.

It may be thought, that they forbore this application of so odious a term, out of respect to the government under which they lived, and from prudential considerations. These motives had, without doubt, their weight with them, and made them more cautious, than they would otherwise have been, in interpreting the prophecies. But, if they had been at liberty to speak out, and declare their full sense, on the subject, it is certain they would not, and could not, consistently with their avowed principles, apply the prophecies concerning Antichrist to the Roman Emperors. For they had learned from tradition, and from the letter of the prophecies, that Antichrist was to be revealed in some distant age; and they even collected from a remarkable passage in one of St. Paul’s Epistles (which will be considered hereafter) that the removal of the Roman empire was to make way for his appearance. Hence, they give it as a reason for their ardent prayers to Heaven for the preservation of the empire, that the dreaded power of Antichrist could not commence, so long as the Imperial sovereignty subsisted. And it is observable that, of those few writers, who were in different sentiments, the greater part conceived the time of his coming to be remote; and were even driven to the strange necessity of supposing that Nero, the first persecuting Emperor, was miraculously kept alive, or would be raised up from the dead, in order to be revealed in a future age, as the Antichrist of the prophets, or at least as the Precursor of Antichrist119.

In short, the idea, which the early Christians, in general, formed of Antichrist, was that of a power, to be revealed in distant times, after the dissolution of the Roman empire; of a power, to arise out of the ruins of that empire. Not to multiply quotations, on a point which admits no doubt, Jerom, the ablest of the ancient Fathers, and the most esteemed, shall speak for the rest. He says expressly, that such was the idea of all the ecclesiastical writers, down to his time, as is here represented120.

Now this circumstance ye will surely think not a little remarkable, that they, who lived under the emperors, and felt the whole weight of their tyrannous persecution, should not apply the prophetic notes and characters of Antichrist, to them, if indeed the prophecies had been fairly capable of such application. This, I say, is exceedingly remarkable: for men are but too apt even to wrest the scriptures to a sense, which favours their own cause, or gratifies their passions; and to find a completion of prophecy in events, which fall out in their own days and concern themselves (as we see from so many absurd applications of the Apocalypse, justly objected to certain Protestant writers); though, when such events are past, and impartially considered, no such accomplishment of prophecy can be discerned in them.

When the church of Rome, therefore, now pretends, that Antichrist is to be sought in Imperial and Pagan Rome, ye will naturally ask how it came to pass, that the ancient fathers, who had the best opportunity of seeing the conformity of the prophecies with the transactions of their times, and were so much interested in those transactions, should yet overlook such conformity, if it had been real, and fairly marked out by the prophecies, when interpreters of these days are so quick-sighted? And to this question, no just and satisfactory answer can be given, but that, in the opinion of those fathers, the characters of Antichrist were not sufficiently applicable to the Roman emperors; or, if they were, that certain express clauses in the prophecies themselves forbade that application of them. Either way, their conduct forms a strong presumption, that the Antichrist of the prophets was not, and could not be, the Roman Emperor.

I know indeed, that, when the empire became Christian, and factions sprang up in the church, the name of Antichrist, as a term of reproach, was not unfrequently bestowed on such of the emperors as had made themselves obnoxious to the orthodox party. But this flippancy of language proves nothing but the passion of the men who indulged themselves in it, unless it be, that this term of reproach was thought better suited to an ecclesiastic, than a civil power: for the Emperor, being now the head of the Christian church, his persecutions of the faith were deemed the more Antichristian, as they especially disgraced his religious character. And how natural this idea was, I mean the idea of Antichrist, as intended by the prophets of a religious, not civil power, we may learn from the history of the schisms, which afterwards distracted the church under the papacy; when the Antipopes very liberally, and constantly branded each other with the name of Antichrist: as if they had found a peculiar aptness in the prophetic language to express ecclesiastical tyranny and usurpation.

But, whatever use we may make of these facts, it is clear, on all hands, that the Roman Emperor, as such, was thought to have no concern in the predictions concerning Antichrist; at least, that the more intelligent Christian writers of the three first centuries had no idea of his having any such concern in them: while, yet, they held very unanimously, that some future power was to arise in the church, in which those predictions would be completed.

III. This, in general, was the state of the controversy concerning Antichrist, till the down-fall of the Western empire; when the Bishop of Rome reared his head, and by degrees found means, amidst the ruins of that mighty power, to advance himself into the sovereignty of Rome, and, at length, of the Christian world: fixing his residence in the very seat and throne of the Cæsars. It remains to see, in what light the reign of Antichrist was, thenceforth, considered by many eminent members of that church, which now called itself, and was, in a manner, universal. In other words, we are to inquire, now that the imperial power, which the fathers would not acknowledge to be Antichristian, had deserted Rome, whether the papal power, which took its place on the seven hills, did not, in the opinion of sober men, fill up all the measures of the prophetic characters, and perfectly correspond to that idea.

1. So early, as about the close of the sixth century, Gregory the first, or, the Great, as he is usually called, the most revered, and in some respects not undeservedly so, of all the Roman pontifs, in a famous dispute with the Bishop of Constantinople, who had taken to himself the title of Oecumenical, or Universal Bishop, objects to him, the arrogance and presumption of this claim, and treats him, on that account, as the fore-runner, at least, of Antichrist. His words are remarkable enough to be here quoted. I affirm it confidently, says He, that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop, or is desirous to be so called, demonstrates himself, by this pride and elation of heart, to be the fore-runner of Antichrist121. And, again, From this presumption of his [in taking the name of Universal Bishop] what else can be collected, but that the times of Antichrist are now at hand122?

It is to be observed of this Gregory, that he disclaimed, for himself, the title of Universal Bishop, as well as refused it to his aspiring brother of Constantinople. How consistently he did this, when at the same time, he exercised an authority, which can only belong to that exalted character, it is not my business to inquire. Perhaps, he did not advert to the consequence of his own actions: perhaps, like an able man, he meant to secure the thing, without troubling himself about the name: perhaps, he was jealous of a rival to this claim of catholic authority, and would not permit the Bishop of Constantinople to decorate himself with a title, which was likely to be favourable to the pretensions of that see, and injurious to his own. Whatever the reasons of his conduct were, the fact is, as I here represent it; and clearly shews that, in the judgment of this renowned Roman Bishop, Antichrist had not yet been revealed in the person of the Roman Emperor; and if ever he were to be revealed, that not a civil, but ecclesiastical character, agreed best with the prophetic descriptions of him123.

2. Pope Boniface III. had not, it seems, the scruples, whatever they were, of his predecessor, Gregory. He readily accepted, or rather importunately begged, this proud title of Oecumenical Bishop, from the Emperor, Phocas; and transmitted it to all his successors. And now, it might be expected, that the Bishop of Rome would be Antichrist, in his turn. But, such was the fortune of that see, or the devotion of the faithful to it, that this charge was not presently brought against him: as if the spirit of dominion, which had so long possessed that city, were a thing of course, and could not misbecome the Bishop of Rome, though it looked so Antichristian in him of Constantinople.

Other reasons concurred to save the honour of the papal chair. Its authority grew, every day, more absolute: and the tradition of the church (which had hitherto been the chief support of the doctrine concerning Antichrist) gradually sunk under the apprehension of that power, to which alone it could, with any apparent propriety, be applied: while the ignorance of the times became such, that, except perhaps in the minds of some few retainers to the see of Rome, there was scarce light enough left in the Christian world to point out the meaning of the prophecies; if its gross superstition would have otherwise permitted the application of them to the sacred person of the Pope.

3. Under the cover of all these advantages, the Man of Sin had a convenient time to display himself, and to grow up into that full size and stature, in which he could no longer be overlooked, or mistaken, by those who had any knowledge of the prophecies, or skill in applying them. Accordingly we find that at the synod of Rheims, held in the Xth century124, Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans, appealed to the whole council, whether the Bishop of Rome were not the Antichrist of the prophets; sitting in the temple of God; and perfectly corresponding to the marks, which St. Paul had given of him. In particular, speaking of John the XVth, who then governed the church of Rome, he apostrophized the assembly in these words—“What think ye, reverend Fathers, of this man, seated on a lofty throne, and shining in purple and gold? Whom do ye account him to be? Surely, if destitute of charity, and puffed up with the pride of science only, He is Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and shewing himself that he is God125.”

4. In the former part of the XIth century, Berengarius, a man of principal note in those days, and distinguished by his free writings concerning the Eucharist, went so far as to call the church of Rome, the seat of Satan (which is but another apocalyptic name of Antichrist); and to know from what source he derived this language, we need only reflect, that, in the catalogue of his works, we find a treatise written by him expressly on the book of Revelations126.

As this century advanced, the papal power rose to its height. And all the characters of Antichrist glared so strongly in the person of Hildebrand, who took the name of Gregory VIIth, that the Romish historian, Joannes Aventinus, speaks of it as a point, in which the generality of fair, candid, and ingenuous writers, were agreed, That THEN began the empire of Antichrist127.

5. Pascal II, who had been brought up at the feet of Hildebrand, and sate upon the papal throne in the beginning of the XIIth century, was treated with as little ceremony, as his master had been; particularly, by Fluentius, Bishop of Florence, and by the whole church of Liege128.

St. Bernard, too, the most eminent person of that age, was so struck with the marks of Antichristianism in the church of Rome (to which, however, in other respects, he was enough devoted) that he employed all the thunder of his rhetoric (in which faculty he excelled) against its corruptions; exclaiming, that the ministers of Christ were become the servants of Antichrist; and that the beast of the Apocalypse had seated himself in the chair of St. Peter129.

But this charge was now so general, and sounded so high, that it reached the ears of others, besides prelates, and churchmen. Historians relate, that it made an impression on our military king, Richard I.; who, being at Messina in Sicily, in his way to the Holy Land, and hearing much of the learned Abbot Joachim of Calabria, (a man, famous in those times for his warm invectives against the Roman hierarchy;) had the curiosity to take a lecture from him on this subject. His text was, Antichrist, and the Apocalypse; which he explained in so pointed and forcible a manner, as was much to the satisfaction, we are told, of his royal auditor130.

6. The first appearance of the people, called Waldenses or Albigenses, was in this age; but, in the next, the XIIIth century, they prevailed to that degree, that Crusades and Inquisitions were thought little enough to be employed against them. We may know what the guilt of this people was, when we understand from their books, and from the testimony of the great historian, Thuanus, that a leading principle of their heresy was, To treat the Pope as Antichrist; and the church of Rome, as Babylon; on the authority of the prophecies contained in the Revelation131.

Other132 testimonies occur in the history of this age. But I must not omit that of our famous historian, Matthew Paris; who hath taken care to inform us, that his contemporary, Robert Grostête, Bishop of Lincoln, the most considerable of all the English bishops, and equally renowned for his affection to civil and religious liberty, was so much in earnest in fixing this charge on the see of Rome, that, as it had been the common theme of his meditations during life, so it occupied his dying moments; the Pope, and Antichrist, being, as he tells us, among the last words of this zealous prelate133.

7. The XIVth century affords many authorities in point; among which the immortal names of Dante134 and Petrarch135 are commonly cited. But the example of our Wicklif, who adorned that age, is most to our purpose, and may excuse the mention of any other. This extraordinary man saw far into all the abuses of his time: but he had nothing more at heart, than to expose the Antichristianism of the Roman Pontif136.

8. Still, as the times grew more enlightened, the controversy concerning Antichrist became more general and important. The writings of Wicklif had great effects both at home, and abroad; and, with other causes, contributed very much to the cultivation of free enquiry, and to the improvement of all useful knowledge, in the XVth century. The church of Rome was pushed vigorously on all sides; and, in her turn, omitted no means of self-defence. That the worst were not scrupled, may be seen by what passed in England at that time, as well as by the sanguinary and faithless proceedings at the council of Constance. Lord Cobham, and the two Bohemian martyrs, were committed to the flames, for nothing so much, as for asserting the impious doctrine, ‘That the Pope was Antichrist.’

9. We now enter on the XVIth century; distinguished in the annals of mankind by that great event, The Reformation of long oppressed and much adulterated religion. The Christian world had slumbered in its chains, for full ten ages. But Liberty came at last—

This important work was begun, and prosecuted, on the common principle, That the bishop of Rome was Antichrist: and the great separation from the church of Rome, was every where justified on the idea, That Rome was the Babylon of the Revelation; and that Christians were bound by an express command in those prophecies, to come out of her communion.

Leo X. was thunder-struck with this cry, which resounded on all sides; and, in the last Lateran council, gave it in charge to all preachers, that none of them should presume to call the Pope, Antichrist, or to treat this obnoxious subject in their discourses to the people137. But his edict came too late. The notion had taken deep root in the minds of men; and the name of Antichrist, as applied to the Pope, was current in all quarters.

10. From this time to the present, the charge of Antichristianism against the church of Rome is to be regarded, not as the language of private men, or particular synods; but as the common voice of the whole Protestant world: so that it will be needless to bring down the history of it any lower.

This deduction, though made with all possible brevity, hath held us so long, that I have but time for one or two short reflexions upon it.

1. First, It may seem probable from the general prevalence of this opinion, in all the periods of the Christian church, that it must needs have some solid ground in the scriptural prophecies: it not being otherwise conceivable, that it should spread so far, and continue so long; or that the more enlightened, as well as barbarous ages should concur in the profession of it.

2. Secondly, from the catalogue of illustrious names, here produced, and from the singular stress, which all Protestant churches to this day have ever laid on this principle, we may see the importance of the general question. The papal divines have an evident reason for treating it with contempt. The men of thought and inquiry, who speculate within the Roman communion, may be restrained by considerations of fear or decency, from joining138 in this invidious charge against the head of their church. But for any, that profess Christianity, and call themselves Protestants, to make light of inquiries into the prophecies concerning Antichrist, and to manifest a scorn of all attempts to apply them in the way, in which they have so generally, and with such effect been applied, is a sort of conduct, which will not so readily find an excuse, much less a justification.

3. Lastly, whatever becomes of the truth, or importance of the doctrine, the antiquity of it is not to be disputed. For we are authorised to affirm, on the most certain grounds of history, that a Roman power, commonly called Antichrist, was expected to arise in the latter times, by the primitive Christians; and that the Imperial, was not deemed to be that power, so long as it subsisted. It is, further, unquestionable that not the Emperor, but the Bishop or Church of Rome, was afterwards thought entitled to the name of Antichrist by many persons of that communion, for several successive centuries, previous to the æra of the Reformation.

These facts should abate the wonder, at least, which some express at hearing the names of the Pope and Antichrist pronounced together. They must surely convince every man, that this language, whatever foundation it may, or may not have, in the prophecies, is not taken up without precedents and authorities; and that the notion, conveyed by it, is not a conceit of yesterday, which sprung out of recent prejudices, and novel interpretations. This, I say, is a conclusion which every man must draw from the premises, laid down in this discourse: and this, for the present, is the main use I would request you to make of those premises.