Page images
[ocr errors]

hended under their Founders and Gover-
nours; and of this Opinion are not only
St. Ferom, among the Ancients, but even
Vatablus, Pererius, &c. among the Moderns.
2dly, Though we should grant, that Four
Monarchies are to be understood by the
Four Beasts, and by consequence a long
Succession of Princes, yet will it not from
thence follow, that Antichristian Kingdom
(precisely taken) must be so too. For the
long Duration and Continuance of the Four
made such a Succession neceffary; but the
short Reign of Antichrist being limited to a
Three Years Six Months, muft necessarily
terminate in one single Person ; who, by
being called a little Horn, Chap. 7. 20.
must be explained of one Person, as the
Ten Horns are asserted to be Ten Kings
V. 24. and (says St. Ferom upon Dan. 7.)
shall arise from among the Ten Kings, who
shall destroy the Roman Empire, and di-
vide it between them ; (and a little af-
ter) who shall not be as some imagine,
the Devil himself, but a Man in whom the
Devil shall dwell corporeally, a 13-a puose?

can .
II. This was also II. The uncontro- From the
verted Doctrine of the Primitive Church Fathers of
by which I do not mean, that it was ever

theChurch. established by the Authority of Councils, much less made an Article of Faith: But that all the Fathers who wrote about Antichrist, who were neither few in Number, nor of the least Repute in the Church, nor at great distance from the Apostolical Age, were of this Opinion. Amongft whom were to mention na morę). St. Irenæus; inch

unit Cyril Diseat thuna lorzechia

[ocr errors]


Cyril of Jerusalem, Hippolytus, Origen, the Author of those Writings commonly attributed to Lactantius, Methodius Patarensis, Ephrem Syrus, Sulpitius Severus, &c, nor do we find that they were ever blamed, much less censured for this Doctrine. And their Authority must certainly weigh with thofe who have any Reverence for Primitive Antiquity, and will judge impartially of the Truth of Things. It will be here needless to quote the particular Passages of these Writers, which favour this Opinion, because we shall be forced frequently to have recourse to them upon the following

Heads. From the III. This was also, and still is, III. The Jews. Opinion of the Jewis Writers upon this

Subject, particularly Rabbi Jacob, in his Book entituled, Abchoth Rochel, published by Hulfius, under the Name of Theologia Fu-, daica; as also Rabbi Aben Ezra, Rabbi Solomon and Kimchi, upon the Psalms and Prophets; and the Hebrew Chronicon, enrituled Seder Olam. In all which you meet with abundance of fabulous Stories concerning his Parentage, Birth, Education, Size, c. which we are no otherwise concern'd' with, than as they prove the Opinion of the Jews to have been, that the Antichrist which they expected was to be a single Person, not a Society, Church or Monarchy. To which also may be added, the many remarkable Testimonies of the Sybiline Ora

cles, which are full of this Doctrine. TheTypes of $7. The coming of this Man of Sin Antichrij. has been variously prefigured and typified


both under the Law and the Gospel (even as our Blessed Lord also was) by many diabolical Opposers of the Truth and People of God; such were Antiochus Epiphanes, Herod the Son of Antipater, Simon Magus, Nero, Julian the Apoftate, and Mahomet, &c. In the History of the Lives of most of the afore-mentioned Persons, are to be found such Circumstances, and as it were Marks of Antichristian Opposition, as may warrant such a Persuasion. The fierce Perfe. cutions raised by Antiochus Epiphanes against the Femus, who were at that time the Pecu

lium, or Visible Church ; as also his ProEN

phanation of the Sanctuary and Temple of God, related at large 1 Macc. I. were fuch as have made many of the Modern Expositors, who were prejudiced against the Do&rine of a personal Antichrift, apply all those Places of the Prophet Daniel to him, which were by the Ancients apply'd to Antichrift. And who is moreover diftinguished by the Author of that History; with a rinner in this remarkable Epithet, 'Auckler Pila; Words deeply emphatical, and that express grain, a very great degree of Corruption. The History of Herod is full of Antichristian Characters; as. First, his secting himself

up . for the Christ, or at least afsenting to those that did, fallly applying to him that Próphecy of Jacob, Gen. 49. 10. That the Scepter should not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between bis Feet, till Shilob should come ; finding that the Scepter was taken from Judab, and tranflated to him. These were they who were called Herodians, not



as Origen and some others imagined, upon a Civil Account, but as St. Ferom, Epiphanius, and Theophilact asserred, because they held Herod to be the Mefliah. Which also our Blessed Lord seems to hint at, Mark 8. 15. bidding his Disciples to beware of the Leaven of Herod; by which the Disciples understood, Matth. 16. 12. the DoErine, &c. Secondly, (not to mention his Cruelties to his own Friends, largely defcribed by Josephus) his murthering Forty young Men, with their Masters 7 udas and Matthias, who in their Zeal to the Worship and Honour of God, pulled down the Golden Eagle, which he in Contempt of Reli

gion had set up upon the Porch of the Ant. lib. Temple, Recorded by Josephus *. Lastly, 17.cap.12. His Diabolical Design to murder the Bler

sed Infant, whom he looked upon as the Rival of his Hopes and Kingdom; which Cruelty extended so far, as to murder (if what is Recorded by the Æthiopick Liturgy, and Greek Menology be true) Fourteen Thoufand Infants ; and amongst the rest his own Son, as the Historians of those Times attest. What we have before observed of Simon Magus, setting himself up as God, is sufficient to justify our making him one of the Antichristian Types; (not to mention his dark Magical Power and Knowledge, whereby he deceived and bewitched the People of Samaria, who looked upon his mighty Works to be Proofs of his Divinity, Acts 8. 11.) which blafphemous Exaltation of himself, because it may seem to some not to be fairly proved by that. Text of


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]


ripture which I have before produced,
112. I shall mention a Passage or two out
some of the early Christian Writers, who
ed not long after his own Times. St. Fu-
- Martyr * tells the Emperor, that this Ap. I.

$ 34.p.51. non Magus had been esteemed as a God, en in his own Imperial City of Rome , Grab. entioning also an Inscription which he d seen upon a Statue, which he took to : his, with this Inscription, sivore Aén osta. he same has been related upon his Auority, by Irenæus, Tertullian, and other ter Writers. Which, tho' Valesius in his otes upon Eufebius † has endeavoured' to + Eccl. ivalidate, fancying it to have been a Mi Hijt

. Lib. ake in that Holy Father, proceeding from II

, Cape is not understanding Latin; ailedging, that ie Statue mention'd by him was lately ug up, with this Inscription, SEMONT ANGO DEO FIDIO. Yet he has een clearly answered by the Learned, Church-Critick Tillemont t, and so has tVid. Tila Mr. Le Clerk, under the borrowed Name of lemont.

Defenfio Thereponus, who asserted the same as Vale

S. Auguft. ius; and since by our Learned Countryman adverfus Dr. Jenkins. Origen * understands that Ex- pherepon: brellion of his being called the great Power animadv. of God, of his being called the Christ, as ID: 176. have explain’d it, p. 96. And further, the cellum. Fragments of his own Writings testifie as Lib. VL much; amongst which is that particularly, P: 282. Ed. quoted by St. Ferom, in his. Commentary, upon these Words, in the 24th of St. Matth. Many shall come in my Name.' Simon the Samaritan (says he) whom we read of in the Acts of the Apostles, has left us this Testi



« PreviousContinue »