anfwer that, in a great degree, it refults from the continuity of the fymbolic form; and if I am farther queftioned for the ultimate reafon, I reply that this difference was obviously proper. The ancient Hebrew prophecies, being propofed to a people undiftinguifhed by their literary acquirements, and no long time before their accomplishment, were little likely to have their meaning prematurely penetrated; but the predictions of the apocalypfe, had they not been of a darker texture and of a more intricate method, would have been decyphered at a period much too early; fince they were to be tranfmitted to the examination of many fucceffive centuries, and not a few of them were to remain unfulfilled, till long after the invention of printing, and the introduction of genuine criticism, fhould have greatly facilitated their interpretation.

That the papal power is threatened with deftruction in the apocalypfe is, however, ftated with fuch clearness, as to admit of no ambiguity. This is a point upon which the Proteftant commentators are fufficiently explicit and fufficiently copious. But on the various unaccomplished predictions of St. John against many of the kings of the earth, they are brief, cautious, and referved. Confcious that in various places of his comprehenfive prophecy great political events are foretold 34, long have they been accuftomed to touch all these parts with a very tender hand 35; and the confequences, which neceffarily flow from their true import,

34 Dr. Tho. Goodwin (p. 22) conceiving that the apocalypfe confifts of two great divifions, fays, it is certain, that the subject of both prophecies are the fates and destinies of the kingdoms of the world.' In ch. X. the angel of the vifion fays to St. John, thou must prophesy before many nations and kings, that is,' fays Dr. Goodwin, about kings.'

6

35 Such has been the conduct of commentators in general. That fome of them have spoken with tolerable plainnefs, my quotations will fhew.

Jome

Jome among them have been ready in a great degree to disclaim, either from a defire of difplaying their ingenuity in the fpiritualizing of texts, or from a fear of incurring the formidable charge of political heresy. Dr. Henry More, a learned divine of the church of England, aware that the prophetical books of Daniel and of John are in a confiderable degree of a political and revolutionary nature 36, in difcuffing this point, has fhrunk from the fair investigation of the queftion, and was afraid to treat it on its only proper grounds. Willing to evade it, he attached to it ideas which not man can seriously be supposed to hold: he supposes it to be maintained, that the fole tendency of thefe facred books is to excite the overthrow of the eftablished

6

6

governments; and, having framed this perverfe ftatement of the argument, he denies, without any hazard of contradiction, that the ftudy of the Jewish, and of the Chriftian, prophet, primarily tends to the production of / fuch confequences. Some,' fays he (in the preface to his Synopfis Prophetica) have a conceit, that the fearching into prophecies, especially those of the apocalypfe and of Daniel, tends to nothing elfe but 'faction and confufion, to the trouble and diffettlement. ' of the affairs of Chriftendom, and to the hazard of the fubverfion of ftates and kingdoms.' But,' adds the doctor, it is very rafhly and unfkilfully fpoken,' to affert that the search into these prophecies of Daniel and the apocalypfe tends to nothing but tumult and 'fedition.' To him, on the contrary, the prophetic vifions of St. John appear friendly to the prerogative

36 Grotius, appearing to be fully apprized of this, in his enumeration of the unjust causes of national hoftility, has written one fection purposely to prove, that the fulfilling of scriptural prophecies is no fufficient reason for entering into a war. Book II. ch. 22. fect. 15. of his learned work on the Rights of War and Peace.

' of

. of fecular princes 37;' and he repeatedly exults in having fo explained them, that they fhall no longer seem to yield encouragement to perfons to tumultuate again ft 'their lawful fovereigns."

But if the apocalypfe does contain predictions hoftile to tyrants; if it does afford encouragement to those, who now combat, or fhall hereafter combat, under the banner of freedom; I am furnished with no fufficient reason, why these predictions fhould remain unexplained, or why this encouragement fhould be cautiously withheld.

In the preface to his Paralipomena Prophetica, Dr. More renews his complaint; and obferves, that fome interpreters of Daniel and the apocalypfe had joined with the ruin of Antichrist, the abolishing of monar'chy,' fuppofing, I apprehend, that they would sustain a contemporary deftruction. To the comments made on chapters II. and VII. of Daniel he probably in particular alludes. Now fince most, if not all the commentators, infer from these chapters, that the European monarchies will at length be destroyed, probably some of the writers, pointed at by Dr. More, might, because it is evident from the prophetic fcriptures that the world will continue to exift long after this time, and because mankind muft ftill continue to live under fome form of government, therefore with confidence conclude, that the voice of prophecy plainly intimates, that, in the place of monarchies, republics fhall every where be established. If the opponents of this learned expositor maintained fuch a conclufion, we fhall cease to wonder at the

37 Notwithstanding all that the doctor has professed in his preface, I apprehend, that he has been forced, in the course of his own commentaries, to embrace fome interpretations, altogether hoftile to fecular princes.

warmth

warmth which he fometimes discovers, when touching on this fubject.

་

6

6

To comment on the apocalypse, so as to please the ruling powers, has long been a task of no fmall difficulty. In the time of Dr. More, to reprefent even the Roman pontiff as Antichrift was an unpopular doctrine. Mr. Mede had exerted,' fays bifhop Newton, more learning and fagacity in explaining the prophe'cies, and in fixing the true idea of Antichrift, than perhaps any writer in any age. But perhaps for this very reafon he was looked upon with an evil eye, and (to the difgrace of the times) obtained no preferment.' Indeed it was efteemed a mark of a puritan, and was a certain obftacle to preferment, for any man to preach that the pope was Antichrift?*.' That the defpotifm of princes, as well as of priests, is represented by Daniel and by John, in various parts of their respective prophecies, will, I believe, be fatisfactorily evinced in the following chapters. But though the exercife of civil tyranny is foretold, and with clearness, it was not neceffary for the prophet to be fo minute as in his predictions of ecclesiastical cruelty and ufurpation. The former had been practifed in almoft every region of the world; and there needed no fupernatural forefight to point out, that it would in future prevail. But the univerfal prevalence of ecclefiaftical tyranny was an event altogether unprecedented and improbable. Such a prediction, if verified, must be confeffed to bear on it the marks of having been divinely communicated. In the first century, when the world was heathen, and the religion of Jefus produced its proper effects, what penetration, merely human, could have difcovered, that the time would come, when the kings of the earth would

38 Vol. II. p. 400.

give their power and strength 39 to a proud and profligate priesthood, profeffing Chriftianity; and that under the pretext of ferving a religion, thus mild and pacific, mankind would be flaughtered, and enslaved, and plunged in crimes ?

39 Rev. xvii. 13.

CHAPTER V.

ON THE TEN-HORNED BEAST.

O' often are the two-horned and the ten-horned Beafts mentioned in the apocalypfe, and so much depends on the forming of correct ideas refpecting them; that, before I proceed to the examination of any other part of that facred book, it will be proper to givé fome account of these emblematic personages. The description of them is principally contained in the xiiith chapter. That Horns denote not fingle kings but kingdoms is now agreed by all the commentators; and it is univerfally admitted by them, however unwillingly it may often be admitted, that the Ten Kingdoms, mentioned by Daniel and by John, are the modern dynasties of the European world which now fubfift.

By Daniel Four Beafts, or oppreffive empires, are defcribed. The last of them, having Ten Horns, belongs to the Roman empire, as governed first by the emperors, and afterwards by the Ten Kings, among whom the weftern empire was partitioned: and it is this emblematic Beaft, in its lat state, as existing in the time of these monarchies, which St. John reprefents in his vifions.