meet with any examples of the emperor's faith in Christ, or of such virtues as are accounted purely Christian, and these only in the latter period of his life. And referring to the edicts, speeches, and letters of the emperor,—a man supposed to have been favoured with personal communication from Christ, -we are surprised at the very rare mention of his Saviour's name, though he frequently magnifies with great piety and zeal, the only supreme God, in opposition to the Pagan deities. So that his religion appears, at the time of his supposed conversion, to be that of Deism, with little or no addition of Christian belief. But, is this consistent with the profession of one who had formed his religion on a miraculous intercourse with the Redeemer? Or, can we suppose otherwise than that he made this profession to be believed by others, though he had no conviction of it himself? This will account for his deferring the sacrament of baptism to the latest period of his life, when it is not improbable that he may have died a convert to the faith. His own words, addressed to the bishops, will show, that before that period, he had not accounted himself a true member of the Church. (Lib. iv. c. 62.) Here is sufficient proof, that the relief of the Christians from the overwhelming violence of imperial persecution, was the result rather of earthly politics, than immediate heavenly interference, and that in this respect, it has fulfilled that part of prophecy now under our consideration. The arch-fiend, thus foiled in his attempts against the Church, renews the war against the remnant of the woman's seed, as will be detailed in the ensuing chapters.

In my exposition of the symbol of the great fiery dragon, of this present chapter, many years ago, I found myself opposed to the interpretation gene

rally received, supported by the most able and learned commentators, and derived from the ingenious Joseph Mede. They understood it to be fulfilled exclusively in the pagan persecuting power of Imperial Rome.

As I had formed my opinion upon the most simple and plain deductions that I could acquire, by comparing this part of the prophecy with itself, and with other similar passages in scripture, and finding that the general opinion could not be maintained under such an examination, I assigned my reasons for dissent. And as I cannot express them in a less compass, or to better effect, I shall here repeat them in the same words :

Where an interpretation is expressly given in the vision, as in ch. i. 20; v. 6, 9; xvii. 7, &c.; that interpretation must be used as the key to the mystery, in preference to all interpretations suggested by the imagination of man. Now in the 9th verse of this chapter such an interpretation is presented; the dragon is there expressly declared to be "that ancient serpent,” (ἀρχαιος, ὁ ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῃ,) called "the Devil;" known by the name of Aiaßolos in the Greek, and of Satan in the Hebrew; "who deceiveth the whole world." Here are his names, and his acknowledged character. No words can more completely express them. No Roman emperor, nor succession of emperors, can answer to this description. The same dragon appears again in ch. xx. 2, and (as it were, to prevent mistake) he is there described in the very same words. But this re-appearance of the same dragon is in a very late period of the apocalyptic history, long after the expiration of the 1260 days, or years, and even after the wild. beast and false prophet (who derive their power from the dragon during this period) are come to their end, (ch. xix. 20.) And the dragon is upon the

scene long after these times, and continues in action. even at the end of another long period, a period of a thousand years, (ch. xx. 7.) He there pursues his ancient artifices, " deceiving the nations," even till his final catastrophe, in ch. xx. 10, when the warfare of the Church is finished. Can this dragon then be an emperor of Rome? or any race or dynasty of emperors? Can he be any other than that ancient and eternal enemy of the Christian Church, who in this, as in all other scriptural accounts, is represented as the original contriver of all the mischief which shall befall it? In this drama, he acts the same consistent part, from beginning to end. He is introduced to early notice, as warring against the Church, (ch. ii. 10, 13;) as possessing a seat, or throne of power, in a great city inimical to the Christians; (ch. ii. 24;) as the author of doctrines corruptive of religion, which are called "the depths of Satan." The evils brought on the Church under the trumpets, particularly the third and fifth, are ascribed to him. In the succeeding conflicts, the Church is attacked by his agents; by the wild beast and false prophet, (ch. xiii.) who derive their power from him; and at length he himself is described, as leading the nations against the camp of the saints, (ch. xx. 9.) Nothing appears more plain than the meaning of this symbol. The only appearances which may seem to favour the application of it to Imperial Rome are, the seven crowned heads, and the ten horns of the dragon. But the number seven is expressive of great universality; and although seven heads, or seven mountains, are in another prophecy applied to Rome in a particular sense, which may properly designate that city, yet they have a much more extended and general signification, expressive of the immense influence of Satan in the councils of this world. In a particular sense also, the seven

mountains and ten horns of the latter Roman empire are fitly attributed to Satan, because during the period of 1260 years, and perhaps beyond it, he makes use of the Roman empire, its capital city, and ten kings or kingdoms, as the instruments of his successful attack on the Christian Church. Joseph Mede, when he had no favourite hypothesis immediately in view, clearly saw and acknowledged the obvious interpretation of this symbol; and, in one of his learned sermons, has justly described the parties engaged in this spiritual conflict: 1. Satan, and his angels; 2. The woman and her seed. If the Roman emperors are at all concerned in this warfare, it is only as subministrant agents of this archenemy of the Church. The dragon therefore appears to me, as he did to Venerable Bede, eleven centuries ago, to be "Diabolus, potentiâ terreni regni armatus." The worldly agents, whom he principally employs to carry on the warfare thus begun, will be described in the ensuing chapter.

2

If the ingenious Joseph Mede has thus misled his followers in expounding the symbol of the fiery dragon, we may attribute the error partly to his overlooking the obvious and scriptural meaning, in the search of one which might give greater scope to his invention; and partly to a desire, which seems constantly to have possessed him, of finding the apocalyptic prophecies fulfilled in the fates of nations, and especially of those of the Roman empire. Another instance of this, and not less glaring, has occurred in this same chapter.

1 Mede's Works, p. 236.

2 Bedæ Com. in loc.;-" the Devil, armed with the power of worldly dominion."

66

The holy Child, prophetically destined to "have the nations for his inheritance, and the utmost parts of the world for his possession, sitting upon the throne of his Father and in the midst of that throne, and exercising universal rule with an iron or powerful sceptre," is evidently our Lord Jesus Christ, and can be no other. Mede and Bishop Newton admit it in the proper and primitive sense, (see their comments, ad locum;) But," says the bishop, Christ, who is himself invisible in the heavens, ruleth visibly in Christian magistrates, princes, and emperors." And "here Constantine was particularly intended, for whose life the dragon Galerius laid many snares, but he providentially escaped them all,-was caught up to the throne of God, i. e. was advanced to the imperial throne, called the throne of God."2

66

That our Lord Christ has, or needs any such representative on earth, endued with his vicarial power, will not be allowed by any well-instructed Protestant. Mede calls Constantine the mystical Christ; but gives no proof of his being in any respect typical of the Son of God. The types of Christ had long ago been superseded by the great antitype himself in full and glorious perfection. There is indeed no argument that can justify this deification of Constantine, for such would be his assumption to the throne of God. The argument which Bishop Newton brings forward, that in Rom. xiii. 1, "the powers that be are ordained of God," does not imply any special power or rule conferred on any particular king or emperor, such as Constantine, but a general power granted to all magistrates, provided it be free from abuse. Nor does the text admit of 1 Ps. ii; Rev. ii. 26, 27; xix. 15.

2 Ad solium Romanum subvéctus.-Mede's Works, p. 494. 3 See Article of Religion, xxxviii. Of the civil magistrates.