Page images

particular Perfon, fuch are, 1. 'O 'Arrixes☺, or the Antichrift, by way of Eminence. 2. The Man of Sin, the chief Author and Servant of Sin, the Head of the Apostacy. 3. The Son of Perdition. 4. O'AineiμerÒ, or the Diabolical Adverfary. 5. '0 'rmenejus, the Blafphemous Ufurper of the place of God. 6. 0"Avou. The Lawless one,who pretends to be above all Laws, and violates all both Human and Divine: Whofoever, I fay, will obferve thefe Titles and Characters muft needs think them fufficient Arguments of the Truth I am pleading for; but there is yet another Place that will, think, put the Matter beyond all doubt, and that is the remarkable Declaration of our Bleffed Saviour to the Jews, John 5. 43. (who fought to kill him for afferting his Divine Miffion. v. 18) I am come, fays He, in my Father's Name, and not, if another shall come in his own Name, him ye will receive. Which Words are a Prophetical Denunciation (notwithstanding what fome have objected from the conditional Particle ar, which they understand to include a degree of Doubt and Uncertainty) of the juft Judgment of God upon their Infidelity, that forafmuch as they had rejected the Lord of Life and Glory, coming in the Name, and doing the Works of his Father, therefore by the Permiffion of God there should arife one in the laft Days, who fhould come in his own Name, and glorifie himself, exalting himself in the place and ftead of God, whom by reafon of the Darkness and Blindnefs of their Understandings

receive me

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

derstandings, they fhould receive as the
Chrift. Now can any Expreffion in Na-
ture be conceived more plainly to point
out Perfonality than thefe! How can we
elfe understand the Oppofition between I
and Another; between coming in his Father's
Name, and coming in his own Name? Be-
fides, is it to be imagined that the Jews,
who did from the Beginning, and do to this
Day expect their Redeemer to come as a
Deliverer and a Prince, cloathed with all
the Majefty and Splendor of an Everlast-
ing Kingdom, fhould ever believe any Ci-
vil or Ecclefiaftical Society, efpecially that
are now in being, to be their Meffiah?
Much less can we imagine, that they will
ever fix upon the Bishop of Rome, or look
for Deliverance from his Hands? This can
hardly be conceiv'd. There are moreover,
many Places in the Prophetical Scriptures,
which by the Ancient Fathers were gene-
rally apply'd to the fame Perfon; as Ifa.
14. and 17. was by St, Cyprian*, with many* Lib.3. ad
others, which falling more properly under Quiri-
another Head, I fhall at prefent omit, and num, cap.
endeavour to give a brief Answer to Two 118.
or Three little Objections which have been
made by the Reform'd againft this Doctrine.
The First was that Affertion of St. Paul, Two Obje
2 Theff. 2. 7. that the Mystery of Iniquity did tions an
even then work; and that of St. John, I Ep. swer’d.
Chap. 2. v. 18. that there were then many An-
tichrifts; and Chap. 4. v. 3. that the Spirit of
Antichrift was then in the World. All which
Affertions amount to no more than this,
that the Antichriftian Spirit was actually

operating at that time in the Beginnings of the Apoftacy; and that there were many engaged therein, who according to what I have laid down, p. 113. are therefore called Antichrifts, but do by no means weaken the Truth contended for; but (as I have there fhewn) are very confiftent with it. The other Objection is taken from the Prophecy of Daniel, who, Chap.7. faw the Vifion of the Four Beafts, and the Ten Horns of the fourth Beaft, and the little Horn that arofe out of the midft of them. Now (fay the Objectors) the Four Beafts are explain'd, v. 17. to be Four Kings, i. e. Monarchies or Kingdoms, as it is explain'd v. 23. and if by the Ten Horns of the fourth Beast be to be underftood Ten Kingdoms, into which the fourth Monarchy fhall be divided; then by the fame Rule of Interpretation, by the little Horn arifing out of the Ten, if it be apply'd to Antichrift, which is generally own'd by the Ancients, must be understood not a Perfon, but an Antichriftian Society, Church, State, Monarchy, or Kingdom. To this I anfwer, First, That I fee no reafon why we fhould understand by the Four Beafts Four Kingdoms, and not Four Kings, as the Letter of the 17th Verfe expreffes it; that is, the Founders of the Four Kingdoms or Empires; and fo the calling the fourth Beaft the fourth Kingdom, may be eafily reconciled to the common way of fpeaking in Scripture, where not only Families and Cities, but even Countries and Kingdoms are exprefs'd by, and compre


hended under their Founders and Governours; and of this Opinion are not only St. Jerom, among the Ancients, but even Vatablus, Pererius, &c. among the Moderns. 2dly, Though we fhould grant, that Four Monarchies are to be underftood by the Four Beafts, and by confequence a long Succeffion of Princes, yet will it not from thence follow, that Antichriftian Kingdom (precifely taken) must be fo too. For the long Duration and Continuance of the Four made fuch a Succeffion neceffary; but the fhort Reign of Antichrift being limited to Three Years Six Months, muft neceffarily terminate in one fingle Perfon; who, by being called a little Horn, Chap. 7. 20. must be explained of one Perfon, as the Ten Horns are afferted to be Ten Kings, v. 24. and (fays St. Jerom upon Dan. 7.) fhall arife from among the Ten Kings, who fhall destroy the Roman Empire, and divide it between them; (and a little af ter) who fhall not be as fome imagine, the Devil himself, but a Man in whom the Devil fhall dwell corporeally.

[ocr errors]

II. THIS was alfo II. The uncontro- From the verted Doctrine of the Primitive Church; Fathers of theChurch. by which I do not mean, that it was ever established by the Authority of Councils, much less made an Article of Faith: But that all the Fathers.who wrote about Antichrift, who were neither few in Number, nor of the leaft Repute in the Church, nor at great distance from the Apoftolical Age, were of this Opinion. Amongst whom were (to mention no more) St. Irenæus, Cyril

Cyril of Jerufalem, Hippolytus, Origen, the Au-
thor of thofe Writings commonly attribu-
ted to Lactantius, Methodius Patarenfis, Ephrem
Syrus, Sulpitius Severus, &c. nor do we find
that they were ever blamed, much lefs cen-
fured for this Doctrine. And their Autho-
rity muft certainly weigh with thofe who
have any Reverence for Primitive Anti-
quity, and will judge impartially of the
Truth of Things. It will be here needlefs
to quote the particular Paffages of thefe
Writers, which favour this Opinion, be-
caufe we fhall be forced frequently to
have recourfe to them upon the following
Heads. :r


III. TH His was alfo, and ftill is, III. The Opinion of the Jewish Writers upon this Subject, particularly Rabbi Jacob, in his Book entituled, Abchoth Rochel, published by Hulfius, under the Name of Theologia Judaica; as alfo Rabbi Aben Ezra, Rabbi Solemon and Kimchi, upon the Pfalms and Prephets; and the Hebrew Chronicon, entituled Seder Olam. In all which you meet with abundance of fabulous Stories concerning his Parentage, Birth, Education, Size, c. which we are no otherwife concern'd with, than as they prove the Opinion of the Jews to have been, that the Antichrift which they expected was to be a fingle Perfon, not a Society, Church or Monarchy. To which alfo may be added, the many remarkable Teftimonies of the Sybilline Oracles, which are full of this Doctrine. TheTypes of $7. THE Coming of this Man of Sin Antichrift. has been varioufly prefigured and typified


From the Jews.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »