inconsiderable difficulty to many, here comes before us-Who, or what is Antichrist? Where shall we find this monstrous power? This is a subject which has greatly perplexed the commentators and writers on Ecclesiastical History. Were we to put this question to the clergy of the church of Rome, the answer would most probably be, that Antichrist was to be found in Rome imperial, or Pagan-the persecuting emperors who preceded Constantine the Great; such as Nero, Domitian, and others.*

To this, however, we object that if the little horn of Daniel, and the Antichrist of John, be the same power, then it is manifest that the latter cannot be the imperial Pagan government, because that little horn was not to manifest itself until the Roman empire, in its imperial form, was broken to pieces and ten distinct kingdoms had arisen out of the ruins of it; for this little horn was to spring up among, or rather behind them. But a second objection which we make to this Catholic interpretation is, that the persecuting Heathen government of the Roman empire is symbolized, in the book of the Revelation, by a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, &c., ch. xii. 3, which dragon is overcome by Michael and his angels—cast unto the earth-and afterwards transfers his power to a beast which rises up out of the sea-that very beast after which all the world is represented as wondering. Now it is manifest that this latter beast is the same with the little horn of Daniel; for the very same characters are applied to it, Rev. xiii. 5, 6. Antichrist cannot therefore be the great red dragon, or Pagan Roman government, as the Catholics pretend; but some power which succeeds to it, and what that is we have still to inquire.

Again; if from the church of Rome we turn to the church of England, or that of Scotland, and put the question, where shall we find Antichrist? the answer is ready-he is the pope, or bishop of Rome! I know no writer, ancient or modern, by

* This is the most general answer that the Catholics return to the question; it may not be improper, however, to add, that some of them, probably aware that it was untenable, have contended that the Reformation was Antichrist!

+ See Dan. vii. 7, 8, 20-25.

Compare Rev. xii, 3, 7, 9, 17, with ch. xiii. 1-4, 5, 6. If the reader be desirous of seeing this subject illustrated more at large, he may perhaps advantageously consult the author's Lectures on the Apocalypse, Lect. xxv.

BISHOP HURD'S ACCOUNT OF ANTICHRIST.

411

whom this subject has been handled with greater accuracy and fairness, or with less of prejudice and passion, than the late bishop Hurd, in his "Introduction to the Study of the Prophecies," Sermons, 7, 8, and 11, in which he has convincingly shown, 1. That we are to look for Antichrist within the proper limits of the Roman empire. 2. That his seat and throne was to be the city of Rome itself. 3. That it was to be an Ecclesiastical, and, in name and pretence, at least, a Christian power. 4. That it was to be a tyrannical, intolerant, and idolatrous power; and, 5. That it was to make its appearance in the world at the time the imperial form of government should come to an end, and that it should subsist for the space of 1260 years.

In all these points I agree entirely with this eminent prelate, and consider his proofs to be conclusive. But then I object to his restricting the title, character, and crimes of Antichrist, to either the bishop or church of Rome-though free to confess that I regard that church as forming a constituent part of the Antichristian system. My complaint against him is that he has unhappily stopped short in the important discussion, and given his readers only half the subject. In that, however, he was far from being singular; it is a defect common to all our Episcopalian and Presbyterian writers when handling the Papal controversy; and this will, I hope, plead my apology for enlarging a little upon it in this place. It is, in fact, a kind of turning point in the subject of Ecclesiastical History, and were I to follow the example of the writers just referred to, and either keep it out of sight or gloss it over superficially, I should consider that I was betraying my trust, and abandoning one of the most important objects of this Course of Lectures.

That clergymen, who themselves form an essential ingredient in the constitution of national establishments of Christianity, should be solicitous to prove the pope to be Antichrist, or at least to restrict to the church of Rome the opprobrium which the Scriptures every where attach to that monstrous power, can justly surprise no reflecting person. The thing is perfectly natural; but our concern is with the holy Scriptures; for it is by that criterion we are to try the spirits, examine the claims, and decide upon the pretensions of the various systems that come before us. But, if we allow our judgments to be regulated by

this unerring standard, we shall be obliged to come to this startling conclusion, that all ecclesiastical establishments are in their very nature Antichristian-and that, by whatever process of induction and reasoning we prove the church of Rome to be Antichrist, we shall be compelled to include in that charge the church of England also.

To throw light upon this point, and make good the charge now advanced, I might proceed to an investigation of the principles on which our national religious establishment is founded, and show that as it exists by act of parliament-is a creature of the state, dependent for its duration, from year to year, upon the state, and might to-morrow be dissolved by act of parliamentso its foundation is essentially different from that of the church or kingdom of Christ. It owns an earthly head, viz. the monarch for the time being, whether king or queen, in whose smile it lives and by whose frown it dies. The materials of which it consists are totally different from the members of the church of Christ; they are not gathered by the influence of the Gospel upon the mind, but, according to their catechism, are "made members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven," by means of an unscriptural rite, administered without either their knowledge or consent, and while unconscious babes. The laws by which it is governed are not the laws of Christ's kingdom, comprised in the New Testament, to which alone his disciples owe subjection; but a code of rules and regulations wholly of man's devising, and as copious and prolix as the whole bible. These, I say, are some of the grounds on which I might discuss the opposition that exists between the church of England and the church of Christ; but they are topics to which I have so often adverted, and on which I have so frequently insisted in preceding Lectures, that I decline to dwell longer upon them in this place, but shall proceed to other considerations.

Allow me, then, to remind you that, in the Apocalypse, the very same system which the clergy of the church of England have admitted to constitute the Antichrist of the apostle Johnthe Man of Sin, the Son of perdition, spoken of by the apostle

* See Gibson's Codex, and Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, in 2 vols. 8vo.

APOCALYPTIC DESCRIPTION OF ANTICHRIST.

413

Paul-and the little horn of Daniel-and which they have generally agreed to impute to the church of Rome, is called by various other names and titles, sufficiently significant to demand our attention. For instance, we find it spoken of under the similitude of a female-a lascivious female, abandoning herself to practices of fornication and adultery—a whore—a great whore sitting upon many waters, Rev. xvii. 1, committing fornication with the kings of the earth, and making them drunk with the wine of her fornication, ver. 2. Now, admitting that this "great whore" is the church of Rome, who, I beg leave to ask, are the kings of the earth that are made drunk with the wine of her fornication?—and it is of the more importance for us to ascertain this point, because these kings, and the nations to which they belonged, are afterwards described as bewitched by her sorceries, and even reduced to madness by her. Nor is this all, for,

Another expressive title, by which this said Antichrist is made known to us in the Apocalypse, is that of "Babylon the Great -the mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth," ch. xvii. 5. But the title, "MOTHER of harlots" necessarily implies that she has unchaste and fornicating daughters. Now, admitting the church of Rome to be the parent, where shall we find the offspring? This is a question on which, so far as I can perceive, neither bishop Hurd, nor bishop Newton, nor any of the learned writers of that school, have deigned to favour us with any information-yet it is quite as necessary to ascertain this point as that the church of Rome is the mother!

Once more: we find this Antichristian power exhibited, in the Apocalypse, under the symbol of A BEAST, having ten horns growing out of its head, which are explained to denote ten kings that are said to receive their power at the same time (one hour) with the beast, Rev. xvii. 12; and these same ten kings are moreover said to have all "one mind,” i. e. one opinion, consent, or judgment-in consequence of which they give their power and strength to the beast, ver. 13,—that is, they unanimously agree to support the beast in all his murderous conduct towards the saints of the Most High. Here, then, comes in another consideration - admitting this beast to symbolize the Antichristian apostasy, or Rome Papal, where shall we find the ten kings or

kingdoms which have agreed to support that system, or, in Scripture style, "to give their power and strength to the beast?"

I have thus stated the subject with some degree of minuteness and particularity, in order that you may view it under the different aspects in which it is presented to us in the inspired writings; and the rather, as that portion of the history of the Christian church which lies before us, and on which we are now about to enter, will enable us, I trust, to give satisfactory answers to all these questions, though I much doubt if that can be done without implicating the church of England in charges which may be very unpalateable to some of her sons.

It may perhaps be objected by some that I am not dealing fairly with the church of England, by holding her up as a part of the Antichristian apostasy, inasmuch as she has renounced the errors of Popery-broke off her connexion with the church of Rome, protests against many of her doctrines, has discarded the spiritual jurisdiction of the pope, and is become the "Reformed Protestant church." Most cheerfully do I admit the truth of all this, and allow the advocates of our national establishment the full benefit of the various pleas they can urge from that source. It is now about three hundred years since the Reformation, brought about by the labours of Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and others, took place-and in that good work our own country bore a distinguished part. But let us not be imposed upon by words and names, without investigating the truth of things. Far be it from me to disparage the Reformation. So far as it went it was a good work-but it was merely a reformation-a lopping off of abuses-a paring away of excrescences. It was not a return to first principles, a reducing of the profession of Christianity to its primitive simplicity, and regulating the affairs of the church by the rules of the New Testament. True it got rid of the bishop of Rome, as visible head of the Church of England; but it was by transferring the power formerly vested in him to that monster in wickedness "Henry the Eighth," and afterwards to his daughter "Elizabeth," and her numerous successors, male and female; and such continues the case to this day. The whole nation (Jews and infidels excepted) are nominally Christians; not really made such by the influence