Volume 1 — SERMON XI. PROPHETIC CHARACTERS OF ANTICHRIST. Luke xii. 56.

—How is it, that ye do not discern this time?

So much having been said on the manner, in which the prophecies, respecting Antichrist, may be interpreted; I imagine that now, at length, ye are disposed to ask, On what GENERAL GROUNDS we affirm, that the Church of Rome is actually concerned in them.

To resolve this question, it will be sufficient to set before you, in few words, some of the more obvious notes, or characters, by which Antichrist is marked out in the prophecies: such, and so many of them, as may convince you, that they are fairly applicable to the Church of Rome; and that, taken together, they cannot well admit any other application.

Of these prophetic characters,

I. The FIRST, I shall mention, is, That we are to look for Antichrist within the proper limits of the Roman empire.

On this head, there is no controversy among those who acknowledge the 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 arise187; 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 chronology188; so in another view, they form a prophetic geography189, 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 away190.

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 earth191.

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 one192 poet is well known; and seems the abridgement of a still more famous line in another193—

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.

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,

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 city195. 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 waters196. 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 TONGUES197.

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 observes198) 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 TYPE199.

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 arise200. “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 God201. 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 world202. 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 Jerusalem203 (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 Dragon204. 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 world205, 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—

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 empire206; as making war with the lamb, and the saints who receive not his mark in their foreheads207, 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 earth208, 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 adultery209.”

Now, although, as I observed, the idolatrous Jews are frequently treated by their prophets, as fornicators, as well as adulterers, nay, are much more frequently210 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, applied211, 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 fittest212 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.

When therefore for this, or the like reason, Babylon was made the 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 VANITIES213; 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 Israel214, 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 admiration215.

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 sway216, and the fire of her zeal217, 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 evaded218. 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 them219. 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 merits220, 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 works221; 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 Testament222, 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-worship223. 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 us224. 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 observed225, 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 commence226, 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 government227.

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 way228.

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 revealed229.

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 kings230; 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.