Page images

hended under their Founders and Gover-
nours; and of this Opinion are not only
St. Jerom, among the Ancients, but even
Vatablus, Pererius, 6c, 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 Succeffion necessary ; but the
short Reign of Antichrist being limited to a
Three Years Six Months, must 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. Jerom 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, as :-) poser vos

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 Apoftolical Age, were of this Opinion. Amongst whom were (to mention na more') St. Ireneus, inch Erha Head


Gyril direct


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

Cyril of Ferusalem, 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 those 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 Fudaica; 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 Sybilline Ora

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



boch 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 Apostate, 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 Jews, who were at that time the Peculium, or Visible Church ; as also his Prophanation of the Sanctuary and Temple of God, related at large 1 Macc. 1, were fuch as have made many of the Modern Expositors, who were prejudiced against the Do&rine of a personal Antichrist, apply all those Places of the Prophet Danjel to him, which were by the Ancients apply'd to Antichrift. And who is moreover distinguished by the Author of that History, with a rinnerin this reinarkable Epithet, 'Ap.dpler '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 setting 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 Law. giver from between bis Feet, till Shiloh should come ; finding that the Scepter was taken from Judab, and translated to him. These were they who were called Herodians, not


as Origen and some others imagined, upon a Civil Account, but as St. Jerom, Epipbanius, and Tbeophilact asserted, because they held Herod to be the Messiah. 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 Do&rine, Óc. Secondly, (not to mention his Cruelties to his own Friends, largely defcribed by Josephus ) his murthering Forty young Men, with their Masters Judas and Matthias, who in their Zeal to the Worship and Honour of God, pulled down the Gol den Eagle, which he in Contempt of Reli

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

sed Infant, whom lie 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 fufficient 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, Afts 8. 11.) which blafplemous Exaltation of himself, because it may seem to some not to be fairly proved by that. Text of


[ocr errors]


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

$ 34.P.51 Simon Magus had been esteemed as a God, $

'Edit even in his own Imperial City of Rome , Grab. mentioning also an Inscription which he lad seen upon a Statue, which he took to be his, with this Inscription, sipore Aén oé'tw. The same has been related upon his Authority, by Irenæus, Tertullian, and other later Writers. Which, tho' Valesius in his Notes upon Eufebius t has endeavoured' to Eccl. invalidate, fancying it to have been a Mi Hif. L. stake in that Holy Father, proceeding from II

, Caro his not understanding Latin; ailedging, that the Statue mention'd. by him was lately dug up, with this Inscription, SEMONI SANGO DEO FIDIO. Yet he has been clearly 'answered by the Learned Church-Critick Tillemont t, and so has #Vid. TilMr. Le Clerk, under the borrowed Name of lement.

Defensio Thereponus, who asserted the same as Vale

S. Auguft. fius; and since by our Learned Countryman adverfus Dr. Jenkins. Origen * understands that Ex- pherepon: prellion of his being called the great Power animadv. of God, of his being called the Christ, as IP: 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.

Cant. quoted by St. Jerom, 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 »