On the whole, there can be no doubt concerning the great city on seven hills. It can be no other, than the city of Rome itself: In other words, the Antichristian, is a Roman Power.
Still, this Roman power, for any thing that hath hitherto appeared, may be a Pagan and Civil power. But
III. The prophecies seem very clearly to point it out to us, as an Ecclesiastical and, in name and pretence, at least, a Christian power.
To begin again with the prophet, Daniel. He tells us, that the Horn which shall arise after, and from among, the ten horns, that is, the Antichristian kingdom, as before explained, shall be DIVERSE from the ten kingdoms, out of which it shall arise[200]. “But a kingdom may be diverse from other kingdoms, in various respects.” Without doubt. And, therefore, we cannot certainly conclude from this single text, that the diversity, mentioned, will consist in its being a spiritual kingdom. Yet, if ye reflect that this diversity is given, as the characteristic mark of the Antichristian kingdom; that, although there may be other and smaller differences between kingdoms, the greatest and most signal is that which subsists between a temporal and spiritual power; nay, that Government, as such, is, and can only be, of two sorts, civil and spiritual, as corresponding to the two constituent parts of man, (the subject of all government in this world,) the Soul and the Body: Taking, I say, these considerations along with you, ye cannot esteem it a very harsh and violent interpretation, if, without looking any farther, we incline to think that this diversity of regimen, so emphatically pointed out, respects that great and essential difference in human government, only. At least, it will be admitted, that, if, from other and more express testimonies, the government of Antichrist appear to be a spiritual government, we shall, then, be authorized to put such a construction on Daniel’s prophecy, as will reach the full force and import of his expression. Such a kingdom must be allowed to be eminently diverse from secular kingdoms. So that the harmony between the prophets on this subject will be clear and striking.
Now, such a testimony we seem to find in the Apostle, St. Paul; who, prophesying of the man of Sin, or Antichrist, to be revealed in the latter days, makes it a distinguishing part of his character, That he sitteth in the temple of God[201]. Consider the force of these words. A power, seated in the temple of God, can be nothing but a power suitable to that place, or a spiritual power: just as a power, seated in the throne of Cæsar, could only be interpreted of a civil power.
Nor say, because the context runs thus—“that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, SHEWING himself that he is God—that therefore it only means his claiming divine honours: a degree of blasphemy, very applicable to a civil power.” This objection has clearly no force: because his sitting in the temple of God was the very means (if we rightly apply this prophecy) by which the man of sin rose to that abominable pre-eminence. It was by virtue of his spiritual, that he assumed a divine character. So that the phrase—as God—and that other—shewing himself that he is God—sets before us, indeed, the extravagant height to which the man of sin aspired, and to which he ascended; but, no way invalidates the conclusion from his sitting in the temple of God—that he was a spiritual power. Rather, we see the propriety of this conclusion: because the text, thus understood, suggests the way in which the man of sin accomplished his blasphemous purpose: His success arose, from his station in the temple. On the other hand, a power sitting in the throne of Cæsar, might sit there as God, and might shew himself that he was God (as many of the Roman Emperors did:) So that the clause—sitting in the temple of God—has evidently no peculiar fitness, as applied to the usurpation of divine honours by a civil tyrant; whereas we see it has that fitness, when applied to a spiritual tyrant. The context therefore proves nothing against the interpretation, here proposed and defended.
But, what is this temple of God? The temple at Jerusalem, it will be said; the only temple, so called, then subsisting in the world[202]. Admit this to be the literal sense of the words. Yet ye remember so much of what hath been said concerning the prophetic style, as not to think it strange, that the literal sense should involve in it another, a mystical meaning. And this, without any uncertainty whatsoever. For so, the term, Jew, means a Christian; the term, David, means Christ; the incense of the temple-service, means the prayers of Christians; plainly and confessedly so, in numberless instances. Agreeably to this analogical use of Jewish terms, in the style of the prophets, the temple of God, nay the temple of Jerusalem[203] (if that had been the expression) must, in all reason, be interpreted of the Christian church, and could not, in the prophetic language, be interpreted otherwise. When, therefore, Antichrist is said to sit in the temple of God, it is the same thing as if it had been said of him, That he sitteth, or ruleth, in the church of Christ. Now, substitute these words—the church of Christ—in the room of those other words—the temple of God; and see, if St. Paul, supposing his purpose had been to express a spiritual power in opposition to a civil; see, I say, if St. Paul could have conveyed that purpose more plainly.
Still, we have another, and, if possible, a more decisive testimony in the Revelations. For, among the different views, which St. John gives us of Antichrist, in so many distinct visions, one is set before us in the following manner—And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a Dragon[204]. Now, if we had known nothing more of these symbols, than what the obvious qualities of the animals themselves suggested to us, we could only have inferred, that this ruling power (for that is the idea conveyed by the term, Beast) would put on the appearance of a gentle and pacific administration: I say, the appearance; for what its real character was to be, is clearly enough expressed in what follows, that this lamb-like beast spake as a Dragon. But, when we further reflect, that horns, in the prophetic style, are the emblems of power, and that a Lamb is the peculiar, the appropriated symbol of Christ, the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world[205], and is constantly so employed throughout this whole prophecy of the Revelations, we must, of necessity, conclude that a beast with the horns of a lamb can only be a state or person, pretending to such powers, as Christ exercised, and his Religion authoriseth; that is, powers, not of this world, but purely spiritual.
The other symbol of a Dragon, confirms this conclusion. For a Dragon, in the prophecies, is the known symbol of the old Roman Government in its pagan, persecuting state. When, therefore, it is said that the beast spake as a Dragon, the meaning is, That Antichrist should assume the highest tone of civil authority in promoting his tyrannous purposes, though he cloked his fierce pretensions under the meek semblance of a spiritual character. Taken together, these two symbols speak as plainly, as symbolic terms can speak, That Antichrist was to be a religious person, acting in the spirit of a secular tyrant. So exactly is he characterised by the poet Mantuan, addressing himself to one of the Popes—
Ense potens gemino, cujus vestigia adorant
Cæsar et aurato vestiti murice reges.