Chapter 11

186I am not ignorant that many interpreters have thought otherwise. But possibly they have not enough attended to the advice, which Mr. Mede used to give to such of his friends as did not enter into his ideas—Expende. My meaning is, that, if they had possessed the patience, or the sagacity, to understand this great Inventor, before they objected to him, they would perhaps have seen cause to acquiesce in theMethod, pointed out by him, instead of attempting in various ways, and to little purpose, to improve upon it.187Dan. vii. 7, 8.—I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast—hadten horns. I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among themanother little horn—Compare with ver. 24.—The ten horns out of this kingdom areten kings(or kingdoms) that shall arise: andanother shall arise after them.188Mede, p. 712.189Sir Isaac Newton, p. 31.190Dan. vii. 11, 12.—Concerning the rest of the beasts, they had theirdominion taken away: yet theirlives were prolongedfor a season and a time.191Rev. xvii. 3, 4. 9. 12. 18.192Martial. l. iv. ep. 64.193Propert. l. III. ix. 57.194Georg. l. ii. ver. 532.195Compare Æn. vi. ver. 776. &c.196Rev. xvii. 1.197Ibid. ver. 15.198SeptemBestiæcapita, duplex typus: primò, septem montes seu colles sunt, super quos urbs Bestiæ metropolis sita est; deinde, septem quoque, idque in iisdem (quod unitas typi denotat) Collibus, Regum seu Dynastarum successivorum ordines. Works, p. 524.199The whole passage in the original stands thus—αἱ ἑπτὰ κεφαλαὶ, ὄρη εἰσὶν ἑπτὰ, ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ κάθηται ἐπ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ βασιλεῖς ἑπτά εἰσιν—of which the following is the literal translation—TheSEVEN HEADSareseven hills, where the woman sitteth upon them,ANDareseven kings—Every one sees that the connective particle,AND, refers toheads, and not tohills.200Dan. vii. 24.—The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall arise after them, and He shall bediversefrom the first—2012 Thess. ii. 4.202See Grotius, on the place: who applies this prophecy to Caius Cæsar, and thinks it was fulfilled when that Emperor commanded his statue to be placed in the temple of Jerusalem. A strange conjecture! which many writers, and very lately an excellent prelate, has well confuted. Bishop Newton’sDiss. on the Prophecies, Vol. ii. p. 375.203Hierosolymain scriptis prophetarum occurrit ut emblema alterius cujusdamHierosolymæ, mysticè sic dicendæ; quæHierosolymanon potest esse urbs quædam in montibus Zione & Acra constructa, qualis fuit antiqua illa; sed oportet esserem spiritualem, in quâ attributa antiquæ Hierosolymæmysticèdemonstrentur.Vitringa,Apocalyps: Exp. & Illustr.p. 762.204Rev. xiii. 11.205John i. 29.206Dan. vii. 8. 20. Rev. xvii. 1. 16, 17.207Dan. vii. 21. Rev. xvii. 14. xiii. 7. 16.208Rev. xvii. 5.209Le saint apôtre a bien pris garde de ne pas nommer la prostituée, dont il parle, une adultere, μοιχάδα, μοιχαλίδα, mais une femme publique—sans jamais avoir employé le mot d’adultere; tant il étoit attentif à éviter l’idée d’une épouse infidelle.—Loin de marquer la Prostituée, comme uneEglize corrompuë, nous avons montré clairement qu’il a pris des idées toutes contraires à celles-là, puis qu’au lieu de produire uneJerusalem infidelle, ou du moins uneSamarie, autrefois partie du peuple saint, commee il auroit fait s’il avoit voulu nous représenter une eglise corrompuë, il nous propose uneBabylone, qui jamais n’a eté nommée dans l’alliance de Dieu. Nous avons aussi remarqué qu’il n’avoit jamais donné à la Prostituée le titre d’épouse infidelle ou repudiée; mais que par tout il s’étoit servi du terme defornication, et de tous ceux qui revenoient au même sens. Je sçais que ces mots se confondent quelquefois avec celui d’adultere, maisle fort du raisonnement consiste en ce que de propos deliberéSaint Jeanevite toujours ce dernier motqui marqueroitla foi violée, le mariage souillé, et l’alliance rompuë, &c.—L’ Apocalypse avec une Explication; par Messire Jaques Benigne Bossuet, Evéque de Meaux.Pref.26, 29.Avertisement, p. 321-323. Par. 1690, 12o.210The reason I take to be, Thatfornication, that is, vague lust, and general prostitution, served best to express the unbridled and indiscriminate passion of the Jews for the dæmon-worship of their neighbours: Whereas the crime ofadultery, though of a blacker dye, and, in that view, more proper to expose the malignity of their offence, does not convey the same ideas of universal pollution, being usually committed,becauseit is so criminal, with more distinction and restraint.211Isaiah xxiii. 16, 17. Nahum iii. 4.212—for it is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon their idols.Jer. l. 38. Again:Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord’s hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine, therefore the nations are mad. Jer. li. 7. Compare Rev. xvii.—the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.213Mr. Mede. Works, p. 49.214Deut. xxiii. 17.215Rev. xvii. 6 ἐθαύμασα θαῦμα μέγα.216Not held of the civil power, or acknowledged to be so held, but usurped upon it, and insolently directed against it; as is well known from ecclesiastical history.The Pope is not Antichrist: God forbid!(says the good Abbé Fleury, with a zeal becoming a member of the Papal communion.)But neither is he impeccable, nor has he an absolute authority in the church over all things both temporal and spiritual—Le pape n’est pas l’Antichrist; à Dieu ne plaise; mais il n’est pas impeccable, ni monarque absolu dans l’eglise pour le temporel et pour le spirituel[4emedisc. sur l’hist. ecclesiastique, p. 173. Par. 1747, 12o.]The Pope, he says,is not an absolute monarch in the church over all things temporal and spiritual: That is, heought notto arrogate to himself the power of an absolute monarch; for that the pope assumes to be such a monarch, and, in fact, exercised this supreme monarchical power in the church, through many ages, the learned and candid writer had indisputably shewn, in the discourse, whence these words are quoted. But now thismonarchical sovereignty in all things temporal, as well us spiritual, is certainly one prophetical note or character, by which the person or power, styled Antichristian, is distinguished. Let the Pope, then, be what he will, we are warranted by M. Fleury himself to conclude, that he hath, at least, this mark of Antichrist.217In thepersecution of heretics; which M. Bossuet regards as so little dishonourable to his communion, that he thinks ita point not to be called in question—calls the use of the sword in matters of religion,an undoubted right—and concludes, thatthere is no illusion more dangerous than to considerTOLERATION,as a mark of the true Church—l’exercise de la puissance du glaive dans les matieres de la religion & de la conscience; chose, que ne peût être revoquée en doute—le droit est certain—il n’y a point d’illusion plus dangereuse que de donnerLA SOUFFRANCEpour un caractere le vraye Eglise.Hist. des Var.l. x. p. 51. Par. 1740, 12o.Thus, this great doctor of the Catholic church, towards the close of the last century. And just now, another eminent writer of that communion very roundly defends the murder of the Bohemian martyrs at Constance, and (what is more provoking still) thefraud and ill-faith, through which the pious and tender-heartedFathersof that council rushed to the perpetration of it.M. Crevier, Hist. de l’Université de Paris, t. iii. l. vi. p. 435, &c. Par. 1761, 12o.—Can it be worth while to spend words in fixing this charge ofintoleranceon the church of Rome, when her ablest advocates, as we see, even in our days, openly triumph in it? But, then, hath she forgotten who it was that the prophetsaw, drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus—Rev. xvii; 6?. Alas, no: But she wonders, by what figure of speechhereticsare calledSaints; andrebels to the Pope,Martyrs of Jesus.218See VitringaApocalyps. Exp.p. 603, and the authors cited by him: But, above all, see Mr. Mede’s exquisite and unanswerable discourse, entitled,The Apostacy of the latter times.’Tis true, the Bishop of Meaux is pleased to divert himself with one part of this discourse; I mean, that part, which contains [ch. xvi. and xvii.] the learned writer’s interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy, concerning the GodsMahuzzim. He finds something pleasant in this idea, or rather in this hard word, which he repeats so often, and in such a way, as if he thought the very sound ofMahuzzim, was enough to expose the comment and Commentator to contempt.Hist. des Var.l. xiii. p. 260, 261. But, after all, the ingenious Prelate would have done himself no discredit by being a little more serious in discussing an interpretation, which Sir Isaac Newton adopts without scruple [Obs. on the prophecies of Daniel, &c.p. 192]; and which, in mere respect to the prophet, he should, at least, have condescended to replace by some other and more reasonable interpretation. But it is the infirmity of this lively man, to be jocularout of season. Thus, again, he raillies Luther, for an assertion of his, delivered, it seems, with some assurance, and, in the form, as he pretends, of a prediction,That the Papal power would speedily decline and come to nothing, in consequence of the Reformation. The event, he says, has belied the prophet; the Pope still keeps his ground; and then (in an unlucky parenthesis) laughs to think,how many others, besides Luther, will be dashed to pieces against thisSTONE—bien d’autres, que Luther, se briseront contre cettePIERRE[Var.l. xiii. p. 244]. Now, if the glory of saying a good thing had not infatuated this Catholic Bishop, could he have helped starting at his own comparison of astone, as applied to Luther and the Reformation, when it might so naturally have put him in mind of that propheticalSTONE, which shall one daybecome a great mountain, andbreak in pieces a certainIMAGE,and stand for ever[Dan. ii. 35, 44.]?219L’Eglise, en nous enseignant qu’il est utile de prier les Saints, nous enseigne à les prier dans ce même esprit de charité, & selon cet ordre de société fraternelle qui nous porte à demander le secours de nos freres vivans sur la terre; & le Catechisme du Concile de Trente conclut de cette doctrine, que si la qualité de Mediateur, que l’ecriture donne à Jesus Christ, recevoit quelque préjudice de l’intercession des Saints qui regnent avec Dieu, elle n’eu recevroit pas moins de l’intercession des fideles qui vivent avec nous.M. Bossuet,Exposition de la doctrine de l’Eglise Catholique, p. 17, 18. Paris, 1671.220Vitringa, p. 603, 604.221Heb. x. 24.2221 Thess. v. 25. 1 Tim. ii. 1. and elsewhere,passim.223Coloss. ii. 18.224Heb. vii. 25.225Page 228-231, and p. 255.226“Whatsoever time of Messiah’s appearing Almighty God pointed out by Daniel’sLXXWeeks, yet I believe not that any Jew before the event, could infallibly design the time without some latitude; because they could not know infallibly where to pitch the head of their accounts, until the event discovered it: yet in some latitude they might.”Mede, Works, p. 757.And so in other instances. “I do not believe that the Jews themselves could certainly tell from which of theirthree captivitiesto begin that reckoning ofLXXyears, whose end should bring their return from Babylon, until the event assured them thereof.”Mede, Works, p. 662.227Dan. vii.2282 Thess. ii. 6, 7.229P. 182-184. But see especially Mede’s Works, p. 657.230Rev. xvii. 7.231Rev. i. 1.232Rev. ii. 8. xxi. 6.233Heb. ii. 3.234Hab. ii. 14. Is. xxvi. 9.235Rev. v. 10.236Ibid. xix. 6.237Rev. xviii. 6.238Rev. xviii. 4.239M. de Meaux:L’Apocalypse avec une explication. Avertisement aux Protestants, p. 303, &c. Par. 1690.240Sermon VIII.241M. Daillé.242Lord Falkland, Lord Digby, Dr. Jer. Taylor, &c.243Serm. I. II. III.244Serm. IV.245Serm. V. VI.246Serm. VII. VIII.247Serm. IX. X.248Serm. XI.249Sermon XII.250Verum non est desperandum. Fortasse,non canimus surdis. Nec enim tam in malo statu res est, ut desint sanæ mentes, quibus et veritas placeat, et monstratum sibi rectum iter et videant et sequantur.Lactant. Div. Inst.l. v. p. 417.ed. Sparke.251Ἐγελᾶτο δὲ τὰ θεῖα, καὶ τοὺς τῶν προφητῶν θεσμοὺς ὥσπερ ἀγυρτικὰς λογοποιΐας, ἐχλεύαζον·Fl. Joseph. B. J. l. iv. 6.252Gal. v. 1.2532 Tim. iii. 16.254Acts xiii. 40, 41.255Judith iii. 8.256See his Posthumous Works, published by Lord Sheffield, 2 vols. in 4to. Lond. 1796. Vol. I. p. 463.

187Dan. vii. 7, 8.—I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast—hadten horns. I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among themanother little horn—Compare with ver. 24.—The ten horns out of this kingdom areten kings(or kingdoms) that shall arise: andanother shall arise after them.

188Mede, p. 712.

189Sir Isaac Newton, p. 31.

190Dan. vii. 11, 12.—Concerning the rest of the beasts, they had theirdominion taken away: yet theirlives were prolongedfor a season and a time.

191Rev. xvii. 3, 4. 9. 12. 18.

192Martial. l. iv. ep. 64.

193Propert. l. III. ix. 57.

194Georg. l. ii. ver. 532.

195Compare Æn. vi. ver. 776. &c.

196Rev. xvii. 1.

197Ibid. ver. 15.

198SeptemBestiæcapita, duplex typus: primò, septem montes seu colles sunt, super quos urbs Bestiæ metropolis sita est; deinde, septem quoque, idque in iisdem (quod unitas typi denotat) Collibus, Regum seu Dynastarum successivorum ordines. Works, p. 524.

199The whole passage in the original stands thus—αἱ ἑπτὰ κεφαλαὶ, ὄρη εἰσὶν ἑπτὰ, ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ κάθηται ἐπ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ βασιλεῖς ἑπτά εἰσιν—of which the following is the literal translation—TheSEVEN HEADSareseven hills, where the woman sitteth upon them,ANDareseven kings—Every one sees that the connective particle,AND, refers toheads, and not tohills.

200Dan. vii. 24.—The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall arise after them, and He shall bediversefrom the first—

2012 Thess. ii. 4.

202See Grotius, on the place: who applies this prophecy to Caius Cæsar, and thinks it was fulfilled when that Emperor commanded his statue to be placed in the temple of Jerusalem. A strange conjecture! which many writers, and very lately an excellent prelate, has well confuted. Bishop Newton’sDiss. on the Prophecies, Vol. ii. p. 375.

203Hierosolymain scriptis prophetarum occurrit ut emblema alterius cujusdamHierosolymæ, mysticè sic dicendæ; quæHierosolymanon potest esse urbs quædam in montibus Zione & Acra constructa, qualis fuit antiqua illa; sed oportet esserem spiritualem, in quâ attributa antiquæ Hierosolymæmysticèdemonstrentur.Vitringa,Apocalyps: Exp. & Illustr.p. 762.

204Rev. xiii. 11.

205John i. 29.

206Dan. vii. 8. 20. Rev. xvii. 1. 16, 17.

207Dan. vii. 21. Rev. xvii. 14. xiii. 7. 16.

208Rev. xvii. 5.

209Le saint apôtre a bien pris garde de ne pas nommer la prostituée, dont il parle, une adultere, μοιχάδα, μοιχαλίδα, mais une femme publique—sans jamais avoir employé le mot d’adultere; tant il étoit attentif à éviter l’idée d’une épouse infidelle.—Loin de marquer la Prostituée, comme uneEglize corrompuë, nous avons montré clairement qu’il a pris des idées toutes contraires à celles-là, puis qu’au lieu de produire uneJerusalem infidelle, ou du moins uneSamarie, autrefois partie du peuple saint, commee il auroit fait s’il avoit voulu nous représenter une eglise corrompuë, il nous propose uneBabylone, qui jamais n’a eté nommée dans l’alliance de Dieu. Nous avons aussi remarqué qu’il n’avoit jamais donné à la Prostituée le titre d’épouse infidelle ou repudiée; mais que par tout il s’étoit servi du terme defornication, et de tous ceux qui revenoient au même sens. Je sçais que ces mots se confondent quelquefois avec celui d’adultere, maisle fort du raisonnement consiste en ce que de propos deliberéSaint Jeanevite toujours ce dernier motqui marqueroitla foi violée, le mariage souillé, et l’alliance rompuë, &c.—L’ Apocalypse avec une Explication; par Messire Jaques Benigne Bossuet, Evéque de Meaux.Pref.26, 29.Avertisement, p. 321-323. Par. 1690, 12o.

210The reason I take to be, Thatfornication, that is, vague lust, and general prostitution, served best to express the unbridled and indiscriminate passion of the Jews for the dæmon-worship of their neighbours: Whereas the crime ofadultery, though of a blacker dye, and, in that view, more proper to expose the malignity of their offence, does not convey the same ideas of universal pollution, being usually committed,becauseit is so criminal, with more distinction and restraint.

211Isaiah xxiii. 16, 17. Nahum iii. 4.

212—for it is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon their idols.Jer. l. 38. Again:Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord’s hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine, therefore the nations are mad. Jer. li. 7. Compare Rev. xvii.—the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

213Mr. Mede. Works, p. 49.

214Deut. xxiii. 17.

215Rev. xvii. 6 ἐθαύμασα θαῦμα μέγα.

216Not held of the civil power, or acknowledged to be so held, but usurped upon it, and insolently directed against it; as is well known from ecclesiastical history.The Pope is not Antichrist: God forbid!(says the good Abbé Fleury, with a zeal becoming a member of the Papal communion.)But neither is he impeccable, nor has he an absolute authority in the church over all things both temporal and spiritual—Le pape n’est pas l’Antichrist; à Dieu ne plaise; mais il n’est pas impeccable, ni monarque absolu dans l’eglise pour le temporel et pour le spirituel[4emedisc. sur l’hist. ecclesiastique, p. 173. Par. 1747, 12o.]The Pope, he says,is not an absolute monarch in the church over all things temporal and spiritual: That is, heought notto arrogate to himself the power of an absolute monarch; for that the pope assumes to be such a monarch, and, in fact, exercised this supreme monarchical power in the church, through many ages, the learned and candid writer had indisputably shewn, in the discourse, whence these words are quoted. But now thismonarchical sovereignty in all things temporal, as well us spiritual, is certainly one prophetical note or character, by which the person or power, styled Antichristian, is distinguished. Let the Pope, then, be what he will, we are warranted by M. Fleury himself to conclude, that he hath, at least, this mark of Antichrist.

The Pope, he says,is not an absolute monarch in the church over all things temporal and spiritual: That is, heought notto arrogate to himself the power of an absolute monarch; for that the pope assumes to be such a monarch, and, in fact, exercised this supreme monarchical power in the church, through many ages, the learned and candid writer had indisputably shewn, in the discourse, whence these words are quoted. But now thismonarchical sovereignty in all things temporal, as well us spiritual, is certainly one prophetical note or character, by which the person or power, styled Antichristian, is distinguished. Let the Pope, then, be what he will, we are warranted by M. Fleury himself to conclude, that he hath, at least, this mark of Antichrist.

217In thepersecution of heretics; which M. Bossuet regards as so little dishonourable to his communion, that he thinks ita point not to be called in question—calls the use of the sword in matters of religion,an undoubted right—and concludes, thatthere is no illusion more dangerous than to considerTOLERATION,as a mark of the true Church—l’exercise de la puissance du glaive dans les matieres de la religion & de la conscience; chose, que ne peût être revoquée en doute—le droit est certain—il n’y a point d’illusion plus dangereuse que de donnerLA SOUFFRANCEpour un caractere le vraye Eglise.Hist. des Var.l. x. p. 51. Par. 1740, 12o.Thus, this great doctor of the Catholic church, towards the close of the last century. And just now, another eminent writer of that communion very roundly defends the murder of the Bohemian martyrs at Constance, and (what is more provoking still) thefraud and ill-faith, through which the pious and tender-heartedFathersof that council rushed to the perpetration of it.M. Crevier, Hist. de l’Université de Paris, t. iii. l. vi. p. 435, &c. Par. 1761, 12o.—Can it be worth while to spend words in fixing this charge ofintoleranceon the church of Rome, when her ablest advocates, as we see, even in our days, openly triumph in it? But, then, hath she forgotten who it was that the prophetsaw, drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus—Rev. xvii; 6?. Alas, no: But she wonders, by what figure of speechhereticsare calledSaints; andrebels to the Pope,Martyrs of Jesus.

Thus, this great doctor of the Catholic church, towards the close of the last century. And just now, another eminent writer of that communion very roundly defends the murder of the Bohemian martyrs at Constance, and (what is more provoking still) thefraud and ill-faith, through which the pious and tender-heartedFathersof that council rushed to the perpetration of it.M. Crevier, Hist. de l’Université de Paris, t. iii. l. vi. p. 435, &c. Par. 1761, 12o.—Can it be worth while to spend words in fixing this charge ofintoleranceon the church of Rome, when her ablest advocates, as we see, even in our days, openly triumph in it? But, then, hath she forgotten who it was that the prophetsaw, drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus—Rev. xvii; 6?. Alas, no: But she wonders, by what figure of speechhereticsare calledSaints; andrebels to the Pope,Martyrs of Jesus.

218See VitringaApocalyps. Exp.p. 603, and the authors cited by him: But, above all, see Mr. Mede’s exquisite and unanswerable discourse, entitled,The Apostacy of the latter times.’Tis true, the Bishop of Meaux is pleased to divert himself with one part of this discourse; I mean, that part, which contains [ch. xvi. and xvii.] the learned writer’s interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy, concerning the GodsMahuzzim. He finds something pleasant in this idea, or rather in this hard word, which he repeats so often, and in such a way, as if he thought the very sound ofMahuzzim, was enough to expose the comment and Commentator to contempt.Hist. des Var.l. xiii. p. 260, 261. But, after all, the ingenious Prelate would have done himself no discredit by being a little more serious in discussing an interpretation, which Sir Isaac Newton adopts without scruple [Obs. on the prophecies of Daniel, &c.p. 192]; and which, in mere respect to the prophet, he should, at least, have condescended to replace by some other and more reasonable interpretation. But it is the infirmity of this lively man, to be jocularout of season. Thus, again, he raillies Luther, for an assertion of his, delivered, it seems, with some assurance, and, in the form, as he pretends, of a prediction,That the Papal power would speedily decline and come to nothing, in consequence of the Reformation. The event, he says, has belied the prophet; the Pope still keeps his ground; and then (in an unlucky parenthesis) laughs to think,how many others, besides Luther, will be dashed to pieces against thisSTONE—bien d’autres, que Luther, se briseront contre cettePIERRE[Var.l. xiii. p. 244]. Now, if the glory of saying a good thing had not infatuated this Catholic Bishop, could he have helped starting at his own comparison of astone, as applied to Luther and the Reformation, when it might so naturally have put him in mind of that propheticalSTONE, which shall one daybecome a great mountain, andbreak in pieces a certainIMAGE,and stand for ever[Dan. ii. 35, 44.]?

218See VitringaApocalyps. Exp.p. 603, and the authors cited by him: But, above all, see Mr. Mede’s exquisite and unanswerable discourse, entitled,The Apostacy of the latter times.

’Tis true, the Bishop of Meaux is pleased to divert himself with one part of this discourse; I mean, that part, which contains [ch. xvi. and xvii.] the learned writer’s interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy, concerning the GodsMahuzzim. He finds something pleasant in this idea, or rather in this hard word, which he repeats so often, and in such a way, as if he thought the very sound ofMahuzzim, was enough to expose the comment and Commentator to contempt.Hist. des Var.l. xiii. p. 260, 261. But, after all, the ingenious Prelate would have done himself no discredit by being a little more serious in discussing an interpretation, which Sir Isaac Newton adopts without scruple [Obs. on the prophecies of Daniel, &c.p. 192]; and which, in mere respect to the prophet, he should, at least, have condescended to replace by some other and more reasonable interpretation. But it is the infirmity of this lively man, to be jocularout of season. Thus, again, he raillies Luther, for an assertion of his, delivered, it seems, with some assurance, and, in the form, as he pretends, of a prediction,That the Papal power would speedily decline and come to nothing, in consequence of the Reformation. The event, he says, has belied the prophet; the Pope still keeps his ground; and then (in an unlucky parenthesis) laughs to think,how many others, besides Luther, will be dashed to pieces against thisSTONE—bien d’autres, que Luther, se briseront contre cettePIERRE[Var.l. xiii. p. 244]. Now, if the glory of saying a good thing had not infatuated this Catholic Bishop, could he have helped starting at his own comparison of astone, as applied to Luther and the Reformation, when it might so naturally have put him in mind of that propheticalSTONE, which shall one daybecome a great mountain, andbreak in pieces a certainIMAGE,and stand for ever[Dan. ii. 35, 44.]?

219L’Eglise, en nous enseignant qu’il est utile de prier les Saints, nous enseigne à les prier dans ce même esprit de charité, & selon cet ordre de société fraternelle qui nous porte à demander le secours de nos freres vivans sur la terre; & le Catechisme du Concile de Trente conclut de cette doctrine, que si la qualité de Mediateur, que l’ecriture donne à Jesus Christ, recevoit quelque préjudice de l’intercession des Saints qui regnent avec Dieu, elle n’eu recevroit pas moins de l’intercession des fideles qui vivent avec nous.M. Bossuet,Exposition de la doctrine de l’Eglise Catholique, p. 17, 18. Paris, 1671.

220Vitringa, p. 603, 604.

221Heb. x. 24.

2221 Thess. v. 25. 1 Tim. ii. 1. and elsewhere,passim.

223Coloss. ii. 18.

224Heb. vii. 25.

225Page 228-231, and p. 255.

226“Whatsoever time of Messiah’s appearing Almighty God pointed out by Daniel’sLXXWeeks, yet I believe not that any Jew before the event, could infallibly design the time without some latitude; because they could not know infallibly where to pitch the head of their accounts, until the event discovered it: yet in some latitude they might.”Mede, Works, p. 757.And so in other instances. “I do not believe that the Jews themselves could certainly tell from which of theirthree captivitiesto begin that reckoning ofLXXyears, whose end should bring their return from Babylon, until the event assured them thereof.”Mede, Works, p. 662.

And so in other instances. “I do not believe that the Jews themselves could certainly tell from which of theirthree captivitiesto begin that reckoning ofLXXyears, whose end should bring their return from Babylon, until the event assured them thereof.”Mede, Works, p. 662.

227Dan. vii.

2282 Thess. ii. 6, 7.

229P. 182-184. But see especially Mede’s Works, p. 657.

230Rev. xvii. 7.

231Rev. i. 1.

232Rev. ii. 8. xxi. 6.

233Heb. ii. 3.

234Hab. ii. 14. Is. xxvi. 9.

235Rev. v. 10.

236Ibid. xix. 6.

237Rev. xviii. 6.

238Rev. xviii. 4.

239M. de Meaux:L’Apocalypse avec une explication. Avertisement aux Protestants, p. 303, &c. Par. 1690.

240Sermon VIII.

241M. Daillé.

242Lord Falkland, Lord Digby, Dr. Jer. Taylor, &c.

243Serm. I. II. III.

244Serm. IV.

245Serm. V. VI.

246Serm. VII. VIII.

247Serm. IX. X.

248Serm. XI.

249Sermon XII.

250Verum non est desperandum. Fortasse,non canimus surdis. Nec enim tam in malo statu res est, ut desint sanæ mentes, quibus et veritas placeat, et monstratum sibi rectum iter et videant et sequantur.Lactant. Div. Inst.l. v. p. 417.ed. Sparke.

251Ἐγελᾶτο δὲ τὰ θεῖα, καὶ τοὺς τῶν προφητῶν θεσμοὺς ὥσπερ ἀγυρτικὰς λογοποιΐας, ἐχλεύαζον·Fl. Joseph. B. J. l. iv. 6.

252Gal. v. 1.

2532 Tim. iii. 16.

254Acts xiii. 40, 41.

255Judith iii. 8.

256See his Posthumous Works, published by Lord Sheffield, 2 vols. in 4to. Lond. 1796. Vol. I. p. 463.

Back to Index Next