A demonstration of the first principles of the Protestant applications of the apocalypse together with the consent of the ancients concerning the fourth beast in the 7th of Daniel and the beast in the Revelations / by Drue Cressener.

CHAP. I.

The Prophecy of Daniel the clearest Rule for the significa∣tion of A Beast, and its Ruling Parts. Porphyry's Objection against the Authority of it. The greatest Con∣firmation of the plainness of the Predictions in it. The Authority of the Book Daniel, proved. The 13th Pro∣position, The Kingdom of the Son of Man, in the 7th of Daniel, a Kingdom of Christ Jesus. The singularity of Grotius's Notion of the Son of Man in that place, judg∣ed to be Blasphemy by the Sanhedrim.

WE have now our prospect very much enlarged, by a multitude of known Marks of the Beast, which is found to be the same particular state of one of its Heads from the first mention of him in Chap. 11. to the last end of his History in Chapter 20. by which he is described to us in all his lineaments, with his Rise,

his Mark, his Actions, and his End, and with a great many of his Assistants and Dependants. And, I think, I could make un∣questionable to any that were impartial and considerate enough, that one may come to a very satisfactory determination from hence about the particular knowledge of him.

But because I would continue firm to my first design of carry∣ing on the proof all along in so full and convincing a manner, as should be able to satisfie the most sceptical scruples, it will be much more useful to consult the Prophecy of Daniel for the con∣stant signification of the mystical Phrases that are made use of all over these Visions in the Revelations; for there is a great deal more evidence of the determinate signification of a Beast in general, and of the Heads, and Horns, and Actions of a Beast in that Prophecy. There are a multitude of Instances there of the constant use of these figures in one and the same deter∣minate Notion; and it is generally agreed, That St. John, by the like expressions in the Revelations, does every-where allude to them, as the Original Copy of his Figures, and as a Nomen∣clator to explain the meaning of them. [See References in the 5th Chapter.

There is also this further advantage in the Prophetical Usages of the mystical Expressions in Daniel, That there is the concur∣rence of almost all Interpreters in the particular signification of them, who yet differ from one another about the signification of the same Expressions in the Revelations: And as I found this to be of very great effect for the silencing of mine own Scruples, so is it the most certainly satisfactory method for the generality of the World.

The Prophecies of Daniel have indeed that advantage above any other Mystical Writings of that nature, that the things foretold in them, are so plainly described, That all who have considered them, have in all Ages, till this latter, generally agreed about their Interpretation; One or two Instances to the contrary in the space of so many Ages will be no material ex∣ception against it by Rule the 4th.

Porphyrie the Philosopher, who is the first that is said to be of a different mind from the rest, yet gives such a reason for his con∣fining the date and matter of these Prophesies to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, as does unquestionably confirm the clearness of his Expressions in all his Visions. St. Jerom acquaints us, that

his reason for it was,

Because it seemed plain to him, That the Author must have lived about the times of Epiphanes, from the distinct Account he gives us in the 11th Chapter, of the Successions and Actions of the Syrian and Egyptian Kings under the names of the King of the North, and of the King of the South, till the time of Epiphanes. And so he will have it to be an History of what is past, and not a Prophecy of things to come.

Could there be a greater Testimony of the clearness of Pro∣phetical Expressions, than to see a profest Enemy to it, acknow∣ledge it to be so very plain, that he could not believe it to be any thing but an History of things past?

As for his suspicion of the Authority of it, that is as satisfa∣ctorily answered as need be.

1. By our Saviour's owning the Prophecy, Matth. 24. 15. Which to Christians is an undeniable proof, though it could not be so to an Infidel.

2. Josephus, who lived about the time of Christ (not two hundred years after Antiochus Epiphanes) does own the Prophecy of Daniel for the most considerable of any that they had; and relates of it, That it was shown to Alexander the Great, by Jad∣dus the High-Priest, upon the account of the 8th Chapter, which did plainly foretel his Conquest of the Persian; And that this was owned by Alexander, and rewarded with many great Privileges to the Jews, particularly that of being Tax-free every seventh year, which, no question, remained to Josephus's Age as the publick Memorial of that Action. What an unaccounta∣ble Forgery would that be, which should be able to impose so strangely upon one of the most Learned Antiquaries in that Age, and make him take a Writing concerning his own Nation not Two hundred years old, for an Ancient Writing of Five hun∣dred years standing?

3. Especially, when we consider, that it had been long re∣ceived into the Jewish Canon of Scripture in Josephus's days, and had been constantly used in Greek Translations in their Syna∣gogues

(as appears by our Saviour's Quotations) which is im∣possible for a forged Book, not much above One hundred years old, to have been.

After this assurance, Porphyry's suspicion that it was an Histo∣ry of things seen by the Writer of it, is as great a confirmation as can be desired of the clearness of Daniel's meaning in his Pro∣phetical Descriptions in some parts of his Visions; And the ge∣neral concurrence of almost all Interpreters about the determi∣nate sense of the rest, is proof enough of the plainness of his Ex∣pressions in all.

For what can give one a plainer ground to presume that it is easie to arrive at a perfect knowledge of the signification of the Mystical Schemes of a Prophecy, than first to see it accused by an Enemy of having been wrote after the things were done, only upon the account of the clearness of the terms that are used to ex∣press them; And next, to see all Interpreters of the most diffe∣rent Parties and Interests unanimously agreed upon the particu∣lar Application of them?

This is an encouragement sufficient to make one hope for the fullest satisfaction from the Visions of Daniel concerning the con∣stant signification of the same Mystical Terms in both Prophecies: In order to which, The first thing, that it is the most necessary to be resolved about, as the general Basis of all that is to follow, is this Proposition.

That the Kingdom of the Son of Man in Daniel the 7th, v. 13, 14. is some Kingdom of Christ Jesus upon Earth.

1. That it is some Kingdom upon Earth, is manifest from v. 27. where it is said, that it is the greatness of the Kingdom under the whole Heaven.

2. That it is the Kingdom of our Jesus, is as certain, as it is, that our Jesus was the true Messias. For there is no name of the Messias any-where so peculiarly owned by Christ, as this name of the Son of Man is all over the Gospel. And as by the note of reference joined with it, it must refer to some use of that name in some places of the Old Testament, where it is before mentioned; so do we find St. Matthew 24. 30. what place of the Old Testament that is. For our Saviour does there join that name of his with the very same Circumstances that it is

mentioned with here in Daniel. In that place of St. Matthew, and in all the other Gospels beside in his Prophecy of his com∣ing, he calls it the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of Heaven with power and great glory, which is just the same with that in the 7th of Daniel, about the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of Heaven, and his waving an Ʋniversal Kingdom given him at the time of that Judgment, when there were infinite multitudes of An∣gels attending.

It is most certain from our Saviour's Examination before the High-Priest, That it was the commonly received Opinion of all men in those days, That the name of the Son of Man in those cir∣cumstances of his appearance that are mentioned in the 7th of Daniel, was the peculiar name of the Messias, or of that eminent Christ, whose coming was the great expectation of the Jewish Nation, and was appropriated to him alone. For upon that solemn adjuration of the High-Priest to Jesus, to tell him whe∣ther he were the Christ, which was the putting him to his Oath about it; the Answer which our Saviour gives to it, is expres∣sed in these very words of Daniel, viz. The Son of Man that was to come in the clouds of Heaven, Together with the Circumstance of sitting on the right hand of the power of God; The same with his Being brough near to the Ancient of days, who was upon his Throne with myriads of Angels about him: And this was so presently un∣derstood for an Answer of his being the Christ, and so generally, that the High-Priest thereupon forthwith rent his cloaths, and cryed that he had spoken Blasphemy; and all the rest about him judged him to be worthy of death.

To me therefore it looks like an Infatuation in so understand∣ing a Person as Grotius, To make the Son of Man in this 7th of Daniel to signify nothing but the Roman People; when he himself in his Comment upon the very same Expression, and joined with the same Circumstances in the 24th of St. Matthew, v. 30. had acknowledged it to be spoken of Christ: And on St. Mat∣thew 26. 64. does expresly say, that our Saviour's owning him∣self there to be the Christ, does refer to the same way of expres∣sing it in this 7th of Daniel. And which is the most to be admi∣red, This he does without giving any account of any necessity for it, from this or any other place, where it is used, but thinks it sufficient, that in this new sense it will uphold a new Hypo∣thesis. This is therefore another plain instance against how

clear a Light Grotius is able to shut his eyes, to be constant to a new Invention, though against the unanimous agreement of all the World besides, and even to the hazarding of the Crime of Blasphemy. For a Crime of that nature was it judged to be by the whole Sanhedrim of the Jews (as has been just observed) to give the incommunicable name of the Son of Man, in the 7th of Daniel, to any other, than to the true Messias: And the error of their Judgment was only the fixing of that Crime upon him, who was the True Christ, to whom it did really belong.

It does indeed by this seem to be a double Blasphemy; first to take away the proper Character of the Messias from the True Christ: And next, To give it away to a thing, that neither he himself, nor any else, ever thought to be the Christ.

Notes

• Dan. VII.
• CONSENT.
• S. Hierom. Prooem. in Dan.
• Cathol. Expos. Eccles. in Apoc. Tanta enim dictorum fides fuit, &c. For the things were so plainly fulfilled, that to Unbelievers he seemed not to have foretold things to come, but to have related things before past and done.
• Proposit. 13.
• Matth. 26. 64, 65, 66.
• Dan. 7. 10, 13.
• Grot. in v. 13. cap. 7. Dan.