Visions and Prophecies of Daniel Expounded, Prophecy 5 · Part 2 · Section 6 – Section 7
Sect. 6. That Antichriſt is deſcribed from Verſe 21. downward, and not Antiochus Epiphanes.
The controverſal part.
THe common opinion is, that the next Succeſſour Verſ. 21. is Antiochus Epiphanes. In which accommodation I require ſatisfaction of the Authours concerning theſe particulars.
1. How he was a vile perſon, that is, baſe and of low degree, to whom they gave not the honour of a Kingdom, ſeeing he was the lawful ſon of Antiochus Magnus: Who (to uſe the words of Graſerus) was ſo great, even from his infancy, that then in the world known unto us, there was ſcarce another to be compared with him.
2. I require a ſufficient reaſon, if this be Antiochus Epiphanes, why as many or rather more words ſhould be ſpent upon him, then were ſpent upon all the Kings of Syria and Egypt before him: Whereof ſome were far more notable in exploits then he. If any ſay, that it is ſo, becauſe he was more notable in afflicting of the Saints: I ſtill demand, but why are ſo many words ſpent upon theſe warlike exploits that concerned not the Church? Beſides others before afflicted the Jewiſh Church not a little, and yet their afflictions are not here mentioned. If his perſecutions did exceed, yet why ſhould the deſcription thereof exceed ſo much being but ſhort in duration, and not to be compared with thoſe of Nebuccadnezzar precedent, or thoſe of the Romans in the time following?
But if it be ſaid, the Reaſon is, becauſe Antiochus is deſcribed as the type of Antichriſt: I anſwer again, That the type howſoever muſt be according to truth, and the words of deſcription anſwerable to the things contained therein. The Holy Ghoſt would not repreſent Antichriſt by a type exceſſively deſcribed above the verity and proportion thereof.
3. I demand, how the greatneſſe of the matter and exploits attributed to this King can be exhauſted in ſo ſlight acts, and ſo little momentoſe as thoſe of Antiochus Epiphanes. For he was in no war ſo happy, as that the phraſes here expreſſed might be proportionate unto him. He had little or nothing more then the meaner ſort of the Kings of Syria. Graſ. de Antic. pag 76, 77.Two expeditions he made into Egypt: In both at laſt ignominiouſly repulſed. Againſt the Jews he prevailed indeed at firſt: But afterward was ſhamefully overthrown by Judas Macchabaeus. He advanced his Armies into Perſia: But thence alſo was diſhonourably beaten back. Can it be ſaid of ſuch a King, that the Arms of inundation are overflown from before him, and Princes of the Covenant? Or that he doth that which his fathers have not done, nor his Fathers Fathers? Verſe 24. For theſe words are uttered of him abſolutely, and not as reſtrain'd to his Egyptian exploits: And conſequently in the ſimple nature and greatneſſe of devaſtations, he is ſuperlatively compared with all Predeceſſours. And how can this be verified of Antiochus Epiphanes? And as for his Egyptian exploits (to uſe the words of Graſerus) it is manifeſt, That his father Antiochus did not leſſe exploits againſt Egypt it ſelf. Again I inſtance in Verſe 25, 26. where a mighty and extraordinary war is attributed to the King before deſcribed, to the overflowing and breaking down of the Kingdom of the South; How can this be applyed to Antiochus Epiphanes in reſpect of Egypt? Into which he entred twice, and with ſhort and little momentoſe ſucceſſe: Being both times at laſt ignominiouſly repulſed: The firſt time, by the Captains of Ptolemaeus; the ſecond time, by the onelyonly words and command of the Roman Embaſſadour Popilius. And I inſtance in the phraſe mentioned Verſe 25. that the King of the South did not ſtand by reaſon of him, that is, was overthrown and his Kingdom diſſolved, as the phraſe is uſed, Verſe 15, 16. Chap. 8.4. How will that alſo be applied to him Verſe 27. That his end ſhould be at a time appointed? As if his victorious overflowing continued until a certain period of times. How that alſo Verſe 28. that from the Conqueſt of the King of the South, he is ſaid to return with great ſubſtance, to do and return to note a continuation in proſperous ſucceſſe, in going and returning without repulſe. Again, that Verſe 29. that his ſecond expedition was not proſperous as the firſt: whereby is ſignified that the laſt being unproſperous, the firſt was proſperous: whereas in the former expedition of Antiochus he had a repulſe by the Captains of Ptolemy, as Nauclerus expreſſeth, and in the latter he ſeemeth to have done more then in the former. And if foreign be Ships Verſe 30. ſhall the Ships of Cittim come againſt him, becauſe Popilius came Embaſſadour in a Ship? Wherefore I conclude, that the greatneſſe of the ſtile and of the warlike exploits here ſpoken off, cannot be exhauſted in the petty wars of Antiochus Epiphanes: Neither the circumſtances of this Prophecy can be verified in the circumſtances of his exploits.
4. I demand, who is the Prince of the Covenant, Verſe 22. called the Holy Covenant Verſe 28, 30, 32. which by this King is ſaid to be overflown and broken down: And how, and in whom it is applyable to Antiochus Epiphanes. Some ſay, he is Seleucus Philopator King of Syria; Others, that it is Ptolemaeus Philometor King of Egypt; called the Prince of the Covenant, by reaſon of the Covenant which Antiochus made with them. But he cannot be Seleuens becauſe according to the Suppoſition of the adverſe opinion, his raign and end was diſpatched in the 20 Verſe precedent, and accordingly ſuppoſed broken down without wrath or battle: Whereas ſuch a Prince of the Covenant is here ſpoken off, as exiſted after the King deſcribed Verſe 20. and alſo oppoſed the vile perſon his Succeſſour, being overflown and broken down by him in wrath and battle. Neither can he be Ptolemaeus Philometor: For how was he overflown and broken down by Antiochus? How again could either he or Seleucus be called the Prince of the Covenant: For this is not a phraſe uſual or ſuteable to ſignifie a confederate. Graſ. in …an. 9. pag. …36. 239.And if (ſaith Graſerus) the Prince of the Covenant did here ſignifie the Prince of the Confederacy, yet can it not be applyed to Seleucus or any other, in compariſon with them that are joyned in equal Covenant together: ſeeing a Prince of ſuch a Covenant, is properly ſuch a Prince, which is the Authour and chief maintainer thereof, Adde to this, that the Prince of the Covenant is not here the Prince of a Confederacy, nor Confederate: But a Prince, that is a defender and maintainer of the Holy Covenant, as it is expreſſed in the Verſes following: And therefore cannot agree unto Seleucus or Philopator, or any other Heathen or Heretical Governour.
Graſerus being convinced by theſe Arguments, to avoid the aforeſaid interpretation, declineth to another extremity. For (ſaith he) foreign in this place is adverſary: And the meaning is, That the Arms ſhall be overflown by him, and he ſhall alſo be an adverſary of the Covenant. But not to ſpeak of the harſhneſſe of the context in ſuch an Expoſition, the word foreign is ever in Scripture uſed in the ſignification of Prince or Governour, never of adverſary: And therefore this opinion needeth no farther confutation.
Laſtly, if it be ſaid, that Antiochus overflowed the Prince of the Covenant, in ſubduing and deſtroying of the Jews: I anſwer by demanding, Lyranus.Who this Prince of the Covenant is among them? For not onelyonly the people of the Holy Covenant are underſtood, but the Prince thereof in ſpecial manner. After his tyranny againſt the Jews and their Sanctuary, Judas Macchabaeus aroſe Prince of the Jews, and rather overflowed and brake down Antiochus, then was broken down by him.
5. What ſhould I ſpeak of the great afflictions of the Church by ſword, flame, captivity, and ſpoil, and that for many dayes Verſe 33. at certain guſts ſucceeding after interruptions? The Church now and then riſing and preyailing Verſe 32, 33, 34. and then at certain fatal revolutions ſet by God, expoſed again to fire and ſword, Verſe 35. How can theſe paſſages be exhauſted in the narrow and ſhort perſecutions of Antiochus?
6. The King here ſpoken of, is ſaid to ſet up the abomination of deſolation, Verſe 31. Which by our Saviour is expreſſely referred to the times coming after his firſt coming, Matth. 24.15. and therefore he cannot be Antiochus Epiphanes.
7. The perſecutions of this King are expreſly ſaid to laſt foreign to the time of the end Verſe 35. that is, to the laſt time, the time of the downfal of the Turk, Verſe 40. of Antichriſt, Verſe 45. The time approaching the Reſurrection, Chap. 12.1, 2, 3, 13. The time of the full Revelation of theſe Myſteries, Chap. 12.4. and 8.17, 19, 26. and 10.14. Therefore he cannot be Antiochus Epiphanes.
8. Antiochus cannot be ſpoken off Verſe 36. and thence forward, as Graſerus and Brightman have demonſtrated: Whence I conclude, that he cannot alſo be Antiochus in theſe Verſes immediately before. For all theſe Verſes are joyned together in perfect uniformity, without any note or ſhew of diverſion or tranſition to any other King: Whereas in paſſing to diſtinct Kings in kinde, tranſitions were before uſed, as Verſe 20, 21. But beſides Verſe 36. Antichriſt is called foreign, the King, as ſpoken of before, and with expreſſe reference to a precedent part of his deſcription: and therefore if it is Antichriſt deſcribed in that Verſe, it is Antichriſt deſcribed in theſe before, and not Antiochus Epiphanes.
9. The King here ſpoken off from Verſe 21. downward, ariſeth into his Kingdom manifeſtly and fully after the fall of the Roman Empire, as hath been ſhewed in the precedent Verſes: And therefore he cannot be Antiochus, who exiſted many hundred yeers before. Wherefore neither can he be diſpoſed and complicated with Antichriſt as the Type with the Antitype: Foraſmuch as the words of a Prophecy muſt be verified of the Type, as well as of the Antitype, to conſtitute a ground of repreſentation: And commonly in ſuch kinde of Prophecies, the Type is more plainly and directly expreſſed, the Antitype cloſely involved in the Hiſtory of the Type; Whereas we have ſhewed, that the main paſſages of this Prophecy are unapplyable to Antiochus Epiphanes. Beſides, Antichriſt is not cloſely involved, but is the direct and immediate ſubject of this Prophecy: as may be cleared by the contrary application of the former Arguments. For,
Firſt, he entreth his Kingdom in publike and manifeſt appearance, after the fall of the Roman Empire, Verſe 21. and after the riſing of the Remover of the Oppreſſour Verſe 20, and 21. taking poſſeſſion of his Throne, power, and authority: therefore he is Antichriſt.
Secondly, the manner and matter of this deſcription, is exactly the ſame with the deſcription of the little Horn, who undoubtedly is Antichriſt. This may appear by comparing Chap. 8.9. with Chap. 7.7, 8. whereby it is manifeſt, that the little Horn, Chap. 8. is the ſame with the little Horn, Chap. 7. which ariſing in the fourth Kingdom, is queſtionleſſe Antichriſt. Then by comparing in particular, Verſ. 22. and 21. with Ch. 8.9. Ch. 11.35. with Ch. 8.17, 19. Ch. 11.23, 24, 25, 33, 34. with Ch. 8.9, 10, 24, 25. Ch. 11.31, 32. with Ch. 8.11, 12.
Thirdly, becauſe it is Antichriſt, that perſecuteth the Church, till the time of the end, Verſe 35. with Ch. 7.25. and 12.7.
Fourthly, becauſe it is Antichriſt that is ſpoken of Verſ. 36. and he is the ſame ſpoken off in theſe Verſes going before, as being foreign the King, with reference to the ſame that was ſpoken of before: and diſtinguiſhed by no particle or note of tranſition.
Fifthly and laſtly, all the paſſages that cannot without forcing and ſtraining of the Text be applyed to Antiochus or any other, will moſt properly agree to Antichriſt; ſuch as theſe, to be a mean or low perſon, Verſe 21. to enter into his Kingdom by flatteries, to ſpoil and deſtroy more ſtrangely then his fathers, or fathers fathers, Verſe 24. to overflow the Arms of inundation Verſe 12. and the Prince of the Covenant: By a mighty army to break down the King of the South, Verſe 25. and by deceit the Profeſſours of the Holy Covenant, Verſe 23, 29, 33. to ſet up the abomination of deſolation, Verſe 31. to perſecute the Church for many yeers, and by ſucceſſive guſts, and unto the end, Verſe 32, 33, 34, 35. Theſe and all the other circumſtances, do moſt preciſely agree unto Antichriſt, as may be ſeen in the particular Expoſition.
The ſecond part containing the Expoſition.
Sect. 7. The Deſcription of Antichriſt in general.
VErſe 21. And in his place] That is, in the place of the Remover of the Oppreſſour, Juſtinian and his followers, and in their Throne at Rome.
ſhall ſtand up a vile perſon] That is, Antichriſt, the Pope of Rome, Iſai. 53.3. Pſal. 22.7.called vile, that is, of low rank and reputation, as being indifferently and promiſcuouſly advanced out of ignoble parentage: As alſo in reſpect of the meanneſſe of his primitive eſtate before Conſtantine, at which time he was onelyonly a poor Miniſter having no Princely dignity, neither choſen or called thereunto. He is alſo vile in reſpect of corrupt eſtate ſpiritual, Iſal. 15.4.in doctrine and manners.
and they ſhall not give unto him the glory of the Kingdom] For they gave him indeed the Eccleſiaſtical Dominion, but as for foreign Verſe 20. and foreign Verſ. 21. the glory of the Kingdom, that is, the Secular Dominion, the Regal Majeſty and external ſplendour of the Empire, they refuſed to yeeld it unto him for a long time. For the Emperour yeelded not ſecular preeminency, till after the time of Hildebrand.
and he ſhall come in peaceably] That is, without war, Verſe 20. by a peaceable donation of Eccleſiaſtical Dominion.
and he ſhall ſtrengthen the Kingdom by flatteries] So foreign being entred peaceably, he ſhall afterward aſpire by flatteries unto the ſublimity and perfection of his Kingdom: Flatteries, Heb. foreign or foreign Verſe 32. That is, falſities ſmoothed over with fair pretence of verity, Iſai. 30.10. called foreign, 2 Theſ. 2.11. the effectual working of deception, denominating the Antichriſtian falſe Prophets, foreign, 2 Tim. 4.2. ſuch as ſpeak lies in Hypocrifie, that is, lying doctrines covered over with ſhews of truth, with intention to deceive. Theſe were among the reſt, That Chriſt had given all power to Peter, Peter to the Pope; that therefore Emperours, and Princes, and People, were bound in conſcience to ſubject themſelves to his infallible, and uncontroulable decrees. By theſe and ſuch like flatteries, he gradually and inſenſibly wrought his authority into the mindes of unskilful Chriſtians, until in Hildebrand he had ſubjected the ſecular powers, the Emperours and Princes of the Weſt.