The Person and Period of the Antichrist, Discourse · Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
14. NOw come we to enquire who this Antichriſt is, about which there hath been much controverſy, ſince the ſmoak of the bottomleſs-Pit hath darkened the truth of God in the World: If there were ſuch doubtful Queſtions in the days of the Goſpel, about the Perſon of Chriſt; yea, even among the Diſciples of John-Baptiſt? ſaying, Art thou He that ſhould come? or muſt we look for another? Matth. 11.3. no wonder then if there be ſo in our days, about the Perſon of Antichriſt, [who he ſhould be] whom the word of God ſo fully deſcribes, yea, and that among our own Divines alſo, ſee Baxters Aſſociation. Pag. 69.
15. In my inquiſition after him, I ſhall follow this Method; 1. Negatively, ſhowing [who he is not,] and 2. Poſitively, [who he is,] of the 1ſt. Negatively, ſome would have Theudas to be him, becauſe he was a great Impoſtor, Act. 5.36 others Simon-Magus, who was a greater Deceiver, and to find Grotius (a man of great learning) of this Judgment, I much wonder at, which makes ſome fear he plaid the Caſſandrian, in gratifying the Romaniſts herein, who would gladly enough receive any Interpretation, to wipe their mouths from the Beaſt: I have ſhewed above how both thoſe indeed were inferior Antichriſts; but neither of thoſe could be the great Antichriſt, for they wanted both Time, Place, People, Kingdom, and Succeſſion.
16. As Grotius miſtakes in this of Antichriſt, ſo in that of the Witneſſes, whom he makes Two Biſhops in Jeruſalem, witneſſing againſt that Sorcerer: Thus, Dato Vno abſurdo, mille ſequuntur, This Interpretation is full of Abſurdity; for the Revelation about the Beaſt and the Witneſſes, was a Prophecy of things to come, Revel. 1.1,3. and 4.1. but the Story of Simon-Magus was paſt and of no ſuch conſequence, though many in Samaria and at Rome, wondred at this Magician, yet this was nothing to the whole Worlds wondring after the Beaſt that ſlew the Witneſſes; and if Simon were [the] Antichriſt, then Peter, and Paul, muſt be the Witneſſes againſt him, (rather than the Two foreſaid Biſhops) becauſe they lived in his time, and encountred with him; and Peters Miniſtry (if Eccleſ. Story be true) deſtroy'd him.
17. Bellarmin affirms that Antichriſt muſt be a Jew, of the Tribe of Dan, whom the Jews muſt receive for their Meſſiah, Bell de ſum pont. lib. 3. and Remandus de Antichriſto, ſays further of him, that he muſt Reign in Jeruſalem three years and half, and at length attempting to mount up to Heaven, ſhall be ſlain by Chriſt on the Mount of Olives: and Pererius in Dan. lib. 15. adds ſtill more of this traſh, that he muſt not only be Circumciſed and obſerve the Sabbath, but alſo muſt be born in Babylon: Thus thoſe Romaniſts labours in the very fire with the figments of their own brains, to put Antichriſt far of from Rome, not any of thoſe notions ſeem ſo much as probable, unleſs the laſt of being born in Babylon, myſtically taken.
18. The Abſurdity of this opinion is eaſily detected, for Antichriſt was to ſucceed the Apoſtle Paul's time and John's; but the 10 Tribes were caſt off long before, and much more the Tribe of Dan, which was the firſt Tribe that forſook the worſhip of God, and fell off to the Gentiles, (which Jacob foreſaw, and look'd up to God for Salvation by Chriſt for them, Gen. 49.18.) their Idolatry being Recorded, Judg. 18.30. and 1 Kin. 12.28.29. therefore is there no mention of this Tribe in the Firſt Book of the Chronicles, wherein all the other Tribes are mentioned, becauſe they were of a long time Revolted from the true Religion.
19. Beſides, if this pretended Antichriſt were to be of the Tribe of Dan, how ſhould he be received of the Jews for their Meſſiah, (as thoſe Romaniſts dream) ſeeing the Jews expect their Meſſiah out of the Tribe of Judah, from the Poſterity of David, and not out of this Tribe; neither doth that other notion of his Reigning Three years and a half, hold any better conſonancy, either with Scripture or Reaſon, that ſo many Nations ſhould ſo ſuddenly ſubject themſelves to the Government of a Jew, (as is clear muſt do to Antichriſt) after ſuch inveterate hatred of all Nations againſt the Jews for ſo many years, which all Hiſtories do teſtifie.
20. Indeed ſeveral of the Fathers were of this opinion, that this Tribe of Dan was left out in that 7th. of Revel. (where all the Tribes were ſealed) becauſe Antichriſt was to ſpring of that Tribe; Yet Auſtin gives another deſcant, (in his 11th. Homily on the Apocalipſe) expounding the two horns of the Beaſt, to be the two Teſtaments; [whereas if the Beaſt (Antichriſt) be a Jew, he is only for the Old Teſtament, for the New-Teſtament is not for reſtoring Judaism, and for rebuilding the Temple at Jeruſalem] and whereas he reſembles a Lamb, yet ſpeaks as a Dragon; that is to ſay, he preſents himſelf under the name of Chriſtinity, to ſpread abroad ſecretly the venom of the Devil: Thus he thought him a Chriſtian rather than a Jew, and Toſtatus, Oleaſter, &c. calls this about omitting Dan. in Revel. 7.] a fabulous Interpretation.
21. That which occaſion'd the miſtake of the Antients is, that this Tribe was likened to a Serpent and to an Adder, Gen. 49.17. (as well as the omiſſion of the Tribe of Dan in the ſealing work, Revel. 7. as before) but the cleareſt Interpreters do underſtand Jacobs Prophecy, to have relation to Sampſon: and the Fathers (living ſo long before Antichriſt came to his full growth) may well have their grain of Allowance given them (as all holy men) in thoſe miſtakes, eſpecially in their Alluſions and Allegories, concerning this Serpent, which they lay down as Conjectures only, not as Poſitive and Divine Truths.
22. It may (with as much probability) be ſaid, that Antichriſt ſhall ariſe out of the Tribe of Simeon; becauſe Moſes makes no mention of that Tribe in his Benediction of the Tribes, Deut. 33. as that he ſhall come of Dan, becauſe John makes no mention of him in the Signation of the Tribes, Revel. 7. But they render better Reaſons for both thoſe Omiſſions, that ſay, Simeon was omitted by Moſes, for his bloody treachery againſt the Shecehemites, and Dan by John, for his notorious Idolatry, and Revolting from God, he ſaw deep adverſity on them, Judg. 1.24. as well as groſs Apoſtacy in them that prayed ſo abruptly, I have waited for thy Salvation, Gen. 49.18. ut Suprá, Tremel ſaith, Simeon was omitted, becauſe included in the Benediction of Judah.
23. Our own Country-man Dr. Donne, hath a better gloſs about Antichriſts ariſing out of the Tribe of Dan, than this of the Romaniſts or Antients; for he wittily obſerves that the word [Dan] in the Hebrew language ſignifies judgment, and Antichriſt taking upon him the power of judgment over all Faith and all Actions, as if he were the Judge paramount of Controverſies, ſetting himſelf in Chriſts ſtead, who is Judge of the world. Thus Antichriſt in a way of alluſion to its ſignification may be ſaid to come of Dan.
24. But to omit the refutation of all other opinions about their fictitious Antichriſts, let us now come to this rhat hath the faireſt pretences of all other, that they may wipe the mouth of the great man of Rome from the beaſt, they have ſtrenuouſly aſſerted, that the great Turk is Antichriſt, and Mahomet is the falſe prophet, for (ſay they) the Turk is a profeſs'd enemy to Chriſt, warring againſt Chriſtendom, (quà talis) and that his ſeat is Jeruſalem, in the temple of Solomon, and this agrees (ſay they) with the character of Antichriſt exactly, who is ſaid to be in the Temple of God, and to ſit in that City, where our Lord was Crucified, to wit, Jeruſalem.
25. Here is a clear ſtory, yet if ſeriouſly weighed in the balance of the Sanctuary, it will be found light and miſapplyed: for, Antichriſts Seat cannot be Jeruſalem according to Johns deſcription, who calls that City, the City of the beaſt, which in his time was the great City, that Ruled over the Kings of the Earth, but ſo did not Jeruſalem when he wrote the Revelation. John wrote that Book about 94 years after Chriſt; but it rather was then a ruinous heap onelyonly, it was burnt down to the ground in Titus Veſpaſians time: and the Revelation was not writ till Domitian (who ſucceeded Titus) baniſhed John into the Iſle Pathmos. Revel. 1.9. So muſt be after its deſtruction.
26. As Jeruſalem cannot be the great City in Johns time, neither ſtands it upon 7 Hills as Rome doth, which all Roman Hiſtories take ſpecial notice of; hence is ſhe called by the Antients foreign, Septi-collis urbs, and that Verſe of Propertius.
Septem Urbs alta jugis, toti quae praeſidet orbi.
This cannot be truely applyed to Jeruſalem without notorious violence to the truth; and John tells us peremptorily that the whore is Seated upon 7 hills, as Revel. 17.9. which the very Jeſuits themſelves deny not.
27. Neither can it be made apparent that there is any Temple (of Solomon eſpecially, which was deſtroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in Zedekiahs time, and a new Temple builded in Cyrus Reign) for Antichriſt to ſit in at Jeruſalem: for after the ſecond Temple was deſtroyed by Titus Veſpaſian, we do not read any thing of a third (though Julian himſelf indeavoured it) that was ever built, and Galatinus the Monk proves by the Antient Talmudiſt that there ſhall never be any building of a third Temple. Galat. de Arcan. cathol. Ver. lib. 5. Cap. 10. Yea and a more pregnant Teſtimony we have from Chriſt himſelf, who ſays, that one ſtone ſhall not be left on another that ſhall not be overthrown. Math. 24.1.2. and both Temple and City ſhould be troden under by the Gentiles, until the time of the Gentles ſhall be fulfilled Luke. 21.24.
28. Though it be ſaid that Antichriſt ſhal ſit in the Temple of God 2. Theſſ. 2.4. It muſt not be meant literally of ſome material Temple built of Wood and Stone, but myſtically of the Church of God; as the beſt Expoſitors (both Antient and Modern) doth interpret: and as for theſe words, [where our Lord was Crucified] they muſt be taken myſtically alſo, as Sodom and Egypt are, for as the Seat of the beaſt muſt be a place, like Sodom for impiety, and and like Egipt for tyranny; ſo where Chriſt muſt be Crucified, either in Cruelty to his members, Act. 9.4. or in Contemning his Goſpel, Heb. 6.6. but more of this after, in the definition of Antichriſt) or in the Sacrifice of the Maſs, and this is Rome.
29. Beſides, that Jeruſalem is never called the great City in Scripture, neither is it capable of that deſcription in Revel. 17.10,12,13. For where do we read any where of that City, [Jeruſalem] that it had 7 Kings, 5 of them to be faln, and one there was remaining in Johns time (which cannot correſpond with that City that was then deſtroyed and had no King over it) and another to come to make up the 7th; and then the beaſt appears [Hoc cum Sanctâ Urbe non omninò quadrabit] this correſponds better with the Temple of Peter, and Papal chair (út infrâ) then with the Temple of Solomon or Throne of David.
30. I may add further, that our Lord was not properly Crucified in Jeruſalem, but without the City, as Hebr. 13.12. but ſuppoſe it were within Jeruſalem, yet was it done under the Roman Empire, and by Pontius Pilate, (a Roman-Magiſtrate) yea, and after the manner of the Roman death, for the Jews uſed not that manner of puniſhment, and ſhould that clauſe be underſtood literally, the Argument would conclude as ſtrongly for Sodom, or Egypt, (to be the Seat of the Beaſt) as well as for Jeruſalem.
31. As that unqueſtionable character of Antichriſt (that he ſhould ſit in the great City which (in Johns time) Reigned over the Nations) cannot agree with the Great Turk; which City at that time (as is made manifeſt) was not Jeruſalem; So neither can this character any better ſuit with him, that the myſtery of Iniquity muſt be an Apoſtacy from the Chriſtian Faith once embraced; but the Turk (whatſoever he be) is no Apoſtate, being deſcended of a Nation that never was Chriſtian, but honouring another Prophet above the true Chriſt.
32 Neither is Antichriſt ſaid any where in Scripture, to come like a Victorious Conqueror with potent and puiſſant Armies, (yea ſuch as are innumerable) as the Turk does, but as a grand Impoſtor, deceiving the Nations by the deceitful workings of Satan, 2 Theſ. 2.9. nor muſt Antichriſt Sit in porcorum hara, or in Daemonum Stabulo, [in ſuch a Crowd of Infidels] as the Turk does, but in the Temple of God, in the midſt of the Church: beſides, the Turk is an open Enemy, no myſtery of iniquity, no Church-man, no Prieſt, no falſe Succeſſor of Peter, no worſhipper of Images, no Uſurper of a Deity; ſo cannot be [the] Man of Sin.
33. Moreover Antichriſt hath horns like a Lamb, looks like Chriſt, ſo doth not Mahomet, who never was a Chriſtian, (2.) Antichriſt heald the Wound (which the 6th. head had gotten) by a new ſort of Idolatry, to wit, a Worſhipping of Images, this Mahomet abhors, pretending to worſhip one God only; (3) Antichriſt comes with ſigns and lying wonders, which Mahomet pretends not to, but ſays (to cover his want of miracles) that Chriſt was ſen… with Signs, but he with a Sword: and (4ly) Antichriſt pretends to be Chriſts Vicar in all his Actings, but this Mahomet thinks below him as i… above Chriſt. See Roſſe. foreign. pag. 165.
34. As to the time of both their Originals; it muſt be confeſſed that Papiſm and Mahumetiſm were (much what) contemporary, and therefore Dr. Sibs (in his Evang. Sacrifice) calls them Twins, becauſe they had their beginings (about the ſame Century: Mahumetiſm being the very next Hereſie that ſucceeded Papiſm; the firſt overſpeading the Eaſt and the South, as this 2d. did the Weſt and the North. Pareus Medull. Hiſt. Eccleſ. pag. 247. Oſiander Epitome 7. Century. pag. 31. And both thoſe peſtilent furies hath raged in the world ever ſince. [ità merente mundi perfidiâ] a wicked world deſerving no better; theſe two being the Sink of all former Hereſies.
35. Mahumetiſm is the Scum of Judaiſm and Paganiſm ſodden (as it were) together, and ſtrawed over with a little ſpice of Chriſtianity: and their Alcaron contains a Religion every way accommodated to the carnal affections and corrupt inclinations of mankind; the plauſibleneſs of which (together with a Succeſſful Sword, which, (he ſaith) muſt do greater things then either Moſes or Chriſt with all their Miracles) hath overſpread a great part of the world. Hence the Turk is called the great Leviathan of the land that ſwallows up all before him; as he long ago devoured the holy land, and the Golden Candleſticks of Aſia.
36. Why this Mahumetiſm hath ſpread ſo far, and continues ſo long in the world, Roſſe. View of Relig. pag. 175. Saith, the half-moon is erected inſtead of the Croſs. 1. from the looſeneſs of the Clergy and Laity. 2. from the continual Jarrs and digladiations among Chriſtians about Religion. 3. to puniſh the wickedneſs of the Greek (it may be added, and German) Emperours: Mahumetiſm hath laſted already above a 1000 years, pag. 177. & 179. It is too too manifeſt to this day, how the Turks improve their Empire on Chriſtendom, which is not ſo zealous in defence of the truth, as thoſe [Muſulmanni, believers, or rather misbelievers] are fool-hardy for their falſe god; and the Turks Superſtitious Credulity of fate (prefixing the hour of every mans death, which he can neither defer nor haſten) makes them both fearleſs of Danger and Careleſs of their own ſecurity, this makes them ſucceſsfull in war.
37. Some learned men are of opinion that God rais'd up the Turks to puniſh the Romans, for being ſo Cruel to his Saints, and for their Notorious Idolatry. The Turks (being haters of Idolatry) are made the Rod of Gods anger to puniſh Chriſtian or rather Antichriſtian Idolaters. ☞ It is worth our obſervation, that as yet they have not done much harm to the Proteſtant Churches; but moſt to the Ignorant Greeks and Idolatrous Papiſts.
38. The Eaſtern Roman Empire the Turks have laid waſte, and the Weſtern hath not taken warning according to Rev. 9.20. God will do his work with his Rod and then burn it. This Empire ſhall be deſtroyed per inteſtinas diviſiones, as Luther in his Menſalia affirms; in the mean time, as he is an enemy to the God-head and pure Goſpel of Chriſt, ſo he is an Antichriſt, called Orientalis Antichriſtus the Eaſtern Antichriſt.
39. Yea, our Dr. Holmes doth ſtrongly aſſert, that the Turk and the Pope make up one Antichriſt, and he gives thoſe reaſons for it, 1ſt. Mahumetiſm was hatched by Sergius a Popiſh Monk. 2ly. according to Dan. 7. ver. 8.24. The Turk poſſeſſes three of thoſe Kingdoms which were under the Pope. 3ly. the Turk ſits over the Material, as the Pope over the Spiritual Temple. 4ly. both their names amounts to 666. foreign in the Greek as well as foreign. 5ly. both are Sons of perdition, the two Maſter-limbs of Antichriſt, the one Eaſtern the other Weſtern.
40. Unto all this concerning the Turk, I ſhall only ſubjoyn the choice obſervation of that holy and learned Servant of Chriſt, Mr. John Cotton, who intimates (in his Treatiſe upon Revel. 13.) that while the Pope ſtands, no war againſt the Turk can proſper; for it was becauſe of Romes ſin that the Turk was ſo advanced. God raiſing up a beaſtly Engine to puniſh a beaſtly Religion. Thus may the Turk be one Antichriſt, but not [The] Antichriſt, or at moſt but one Limb of him, which ſhall ſtand longer than the other Limb; for we Read of the Turks Riſe in Revel. 9. but no where of his Ruine, till Revel. 20.8.