In this last sense, the word Antichrist is clearly. employed by St. John: and from his example, the word grew into general use in the Christian church; and is so to be understood, whenever mention is made of Antichrist by the primitive fathers, or any other ecclesiastical writers.

II. I am now to shew in what manner the prophecies concerning Antichrist, or a person or power, so called, and, though variously described, always considered under the idea of an adversary to the true doctrine of Christ, have been construed and applied by many eminent members of the Christian church, in all ages.

I. When the canon of scripture was formed, and now in the hands of the faithful, the prophecies concerning Antichrist were too remarkable not to take their early attention. They accordingly cite these prophecies in their apologies and 'commentaries, or refer to them, very frequently. But one thing is singular. Though Antichrist be every where spoken of in the prophecies as a persecuting power, and though the Christian church then was, and so continued to be for near three centuries, in a state of persecution under the Roman

himself with exact propriety, thought fit, on a certain occasion, to to assume the name and character of ANTICATO. Was it Cesar's purpose to say, or was it his ambition to pretend, "that he opposed himself, to the true Cato, BO MODO ut ipse CATO haberi vellet ?”

emperors, yet this opprobrious name was not usually given to their persecutors. I do not say, that none of the early Christian writers ever applied that character to the emperors. Some few of them, in a fit of zeal and resentment, did.* But the most, and the ablest of the Fathers, were clearly of another opinion.

It may be thought, that they forbore this application of so odious a term, out of respect to the government under which they lived, and from prudential considerations. These motives had, without doubt, their weight with them, and made them more cautious, than they would otherwise have been, in interpreting the prophecies. But, if they had been at liberty to speak out, and declare their full sense, on the subject, it is certain they would not, and could not, consistently with their avowed principles, apply the prophecies concerning Antichrist to the Roman emperors. For they had learned from tradition, and from the letter of the prophecies, that Antichrist was to be revealed in some distant age; and they even collected from a remarkable passage in one of St. Paul's Epistles

* Eusebius mentions, JUDAS, H. E. l. vi. c. 2; and DIONYSIUS, E. H. . vii. c. 10.-Others, seemed to expect that Antichrist would appear as the Messiah of the Jews; but in the person of a Roman emperor; as will be explained presently. See the

next note.

(which will be considered hereafter) that the removal of the Roman empire was to make way for his appearance. Hence, they give it as a reason for their ardent prayers to heaven for the preservation of the empire, that the dreaded power of Antichrist could not commence, so long as the Imperial sovereignty subsisted. And it is observable that, of those few writers, who were in different sentiments, the greater part conceived the time of his coming to be remote; and were even driven to the strange necessity of supposing that Nero, the first persecuting emperor, was miraculously kept alive, or would be raised up from the dead, in order to be revealed in a future age, as the Antichrist of the prophets, or at least as the precursor of Antichrist.*

In short, the idea, which the early Christians, in general, formed of Antichrist, was that of a power, to be revealed in distant times, after the dissolution of the Roman empire; of a power, to arise out of the ruin of that empire. Not to multiply quotations, on a point which admits no doubt, Jerom, the ablest of the ancient fathers, and the most esteemed, shall speak for the rest. He says expressly, that such was the idea of all the ecclesiastical writers, down to his time, as is here represented.†

* See many citations to this purpose in Dr. Lardner's Cred. p. ii. v. p. 210, 11, 12.

† Jerom, in Dan. vii. Mede, p. 657.

Now this circumstance ye will surely think not a little remarkable, that they, who lived under the emperors, and felt the whole weight of their tyrannous persecution, should not apply the prophetic notes and characters of Antichrist, to them, if indeed the prophecies had been fairly capable of such application. This, I say, is exceedingly remarkable for men are but too apt even to wrest the scrip. tures to a sense, which favours their own cause, or gratifies their passions; and to find a completion of prophecy in events, which fall out in their own days and concern themselves (as we see from so many absurd applications of the Apocalypse, justly objected to certain Protestant writers ;) though, when such events are past, and impartially considered, no such accomplishment of prophecy can be discerned in them.

When the church of Rome, therefore, now pretends, That Antichrist is to be sought in Imperial and Pagan Rome, ye will naturally ask how it came to pass, that the ancient fathers, who had the best opportunity of seeing the conformity of the prophecies with the transactions of their times, and were so much interested in those transactions, should yet overlook such conformity, if it had been real, and fairly marked out by the prophecies, when interpreters of these days are so quick-sighted? And to this question, no just and satisfactory answer can be

given, but that, in the opinion of those fathers, the characters of Antichrist were not sufficiently applicable to the Roman emperors; or, if they were, that certain express, clauses in the prophecies themselves forbade that application of them. Either way, their conduct forms a strong presumption, that the Antichrist of the prophets was not, and could not be, the Roman emperor.

I know indeed, that, when the empire became Christian, and factions sprang up in the church, the name of Antichrist, as a term of reproach, was not unfrequently bestowed on such of the emperors, as had made themselves obnoxious to the orthodox party. But this flippancy of language proves nothing but the passion of the men who indulged themselves in it, unless it be, that this term of reproach was thought better suited to an ecclesiastic, than a civil power: for, the emperor being now the head of the Christian church, his persecutions of the faith were deemed the more antichristian, as they especially disgraced his religious character. And how natural this idea was, I mean the idea of Antichrist, as intended by the prophets of a religious, not civil power, we may learn from the history of the schisms, which afterwards distracted the church under the papacy; when the antipopes very liberally, and constantly branded each other with the name of Antichrist as if they had found