ἐν DAN. viii. 8. 24. 25. 21. 11. Ιδε, κέρας ἑτέρον μικρον ανεβη Ὃς ὑπεροισει κακοις πανας Εν Και το κέρας έκεινα ἐποιε πόλεμον μέζα τῶν ἁγίων, και ίσχυσε προς αυτές. 11. Rev. xiii. 1118; xix. 20, 21. - αλλο θηριον αναβαῖνον ἐκ τῆς γῆς, και 19. Και την έξεσιαν τα πρώτα θηρια πασαν Και ποιεί την γην και τες κατοικείας ἐν αυ- ~ 13. Και ποιεί σημεία μεγάλα, τα και τους 14. Και πλανᾶ της κατοικείας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 2 THESS. ii. 3-5. 8, 9, 10, 11. Οὗ ἐσιν ἡ παρέσια κατ' ενέρ ή αποςασία επίτευσαι αυτός τα ψευδεί εἰς το Έως ανηρέθη το θήριον και απωλειο, και το σωμα αυτό έδόθης ως καύσιν πυρος. 15. Και ἐδόθη αὐτῷ δε και πνευμα το εικονι το 16. Και ποιες παλας, τις μικρές και τις ἐπι τῆς χειρος αύξων 17. Και ίνα μη τις δυνῆται ἀγόρασαι· κ. τ. λ. 21. ὁ μελ ̓ αὐτῷ ψευδοπροφήτης ὁ ποιησας τα ἐν οἱ λοιποι ἐπεκλανθησαν εν τη ρομ Ον ὁ Κύριος Ἰησος αναλώσει τῷ In In comparing these descriptions of Antichrist we must observe, that the prophecy of Daniel is the most general, and the most obscure of the three. This is agreeable to the analogy of prophetical Scripture, which is found to afford additional information, as it approaches nearer to the times foretold. The prophecy of the Apocalypse exhibits a nearer view of the common subject, and discovers objects which had not been discerned before; while the words of Saint Paul may be taken as a comment on those of Daniel; and, being the comment of an inspired writer, may be considered at the same time as illustrating, by the Holy Spirit, the prophecy of the Apocalypse. The little horn, which, in the vision of Daniel, had ap peared somewhat more than a common horn, (for it had eyes, and a mouth, and spake, and fought, and conquered,) upon a nearer view, as presented to the Apocalytic Prophet, becomes a separate wild-beast ; and yet, between him and the other wild beast there is, as in the prophecy of Daniel, a very close connection and resemblance. He exerciseth all the power of the first beast; renders him an object of worship; becomes great through his influence; partakes all his fortunes; and perishes with him at the last. This nearer view discovers to us also the two-fold ecclesiastical power which Antichrist was to establish, and which did not appear distinctly at the distance at which it was shewn to Daniel f. This method of sacred Bp. Lowth's Prælect. xx. p. 197. Yet it is remarkable, that the three horns rooted up, the three kingdoms destroyed by the little horn, though represented by Daniel, are not at all noticed in the vision seen by Saint John. This part of the prophecy of Daniel appears to me to be of difficult solution. The three kingdoms, which by modern expositors are assigned for this purpose, sacred prophecy, wherein one vision, under the same or different imagery, enlarges upon another vision, and refers to and illustrates the same original archetype, may be frequently observed. Instances occur continually in the visions of Daniel, which," as Sir Isaac Newton remarks, "all relate to one another, every following prophecy adding somewhat new "to the former*." The vision of the Beasts is only that of the Image enlarged; yet represented under other symbols. And thus the vision of Antichrist, in the Apocalypse, is no more different from those of Daniel, than those of Daniel are from each other. All look to the same times; all are from the same sacred inspiration; and unfold and confirm each other. Now as these several prophecies, of Daniel, of Saint Paul, and of Saint John, seem all to belong "to the latter times," and to point to the same object, supporting and explaining each other; so, they appear to have been evidently fulfilled, or to be now fulfilling in the world. 1. The church of Rome can point out to us the grand apostacy of the Mahometans, accomplished principally by religious artifice; a blasphemous, destructive usurpation, set up in a form the least suspected, because it had the apparent sanctions of purpose, "the exarchate of Ravenna, the kingdom of the Lom"bards, the state of Rome," (Bishop Newton, &c. &c.) taken all together, make so petty a territory, that they seem to compose only a part of one of those ten kingdoms into which the Roman empire, (whether we consider either the whole of it, or the western part only,) was divided. Yet if these be the kingdoms, they belong to one horn only, of the second apocalyptic beast, and to that horn which is to be viewed more particularly in ch. xvii: and thus perhaps in some degree the omission is to be accounted for. * Sir Isaac Newton on Daniel, part i. ch. 3. 5 Religion; No Religion; of fire brought down from heaven *. wild-beast of the ancient monarchies, has been more tyrannous than this. It is indeed the image of the ancient oppression, moulded by the hand of a false prophet, who seized and delivered to successors enormous civil and ecclesiastical power, obtained under the apparent sanction of heaven, and under this monstrous domination, thus artfully and blasphemously produced, the pure Religion of the meek and heavenly Jesus has been superseded, and its saints persecuted and "worn out." But, secondly, the reformed Churches have discovered as manifestly, and in colours equally strong and glaring, another apostacy from the truth of Christianity; another erection of corrupt, worldly, oppressive, and blasphemous dominion, established by ecclesiastical artifices, and by pretended miracles, under the direction of another false prophet, who likewise is seen sitting in the Temple of God; in the sacred centre of the Christian Communion. There he has been seen exercising, by inquisitorial powers, the tyrannous domination of the first beast, persecuting even unto death, and denying the common privileges of life to those who, true to their Lord, refuse to receive the badge of his usurpation †. But these, • See note, ch. viii. 5. ↑ I have judged it unnecessary, to shew, by a deduction of particulars as they arise in history, the agreement between Popery, and the emblems of the beast; because this has been done copiously by almost all the Protestant writers on this subject. The reader will find much information of this kind in some late publications; in Campbell on Ecclesiastical History; in Whitaker on the Revelation; in Kett on Prophecy. But I will beg leave to add in behalf of us all, that, when Protestant writers attribute such descriptions to the papal church, they must not be understood, as uttering a censure on th individuals |
