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.

APPENDIX.

CHAP. I.

Testimonies of the best Learned Men amongst the Jews, and Christians, both of the Roman and Reformed Church, concerning the General Agreement of the Ancients in making the Fourth Beast in the 7^th of Da∣niel, to be the Reign of the Romans.

IT may seem to have been very evidently demonstrated from a full and close Examination of the Prophetical Schemes in the Book of Daniel, That the Fourth Beast in the 7th Chapter, is the Kingdom of the Romans. But all the rational proof that can be brought for it, will not be able to free it from very strong suspicions, if that be true which Sir John Marsham has positively affirmed about it in his Canon Chronicus, pag. 610. Edit. Lips. viz. That almost all those who wrote after the time of Josephus, about the Visions in that 7th chapter, as well as those in the 8th and 11th chapter of Daniel, did understand them of the Exploits of Antiochus Epiphanes: For this would make any think, that are swayed by great Authorities, (as the genera∣lity of the world are), That this general agree∣ment of the Ancients in their Applications of the Fourth Beast in the 7th Chapter, to the Grecian Monarchy, must in all reason be thought to be the most obvious and natural signi∣fication of the place; and this would shake the whole founda∣tion of all that has been demonstrated of the Beast in the Revela∣tions, which relies all upon the uniform Acceptation of the like Schemes in Daniel, from the Certainty of the signification of the Fourth Beast in the 7th Chapter.

Wherefore, besides the close Proof of it from the Prophecy it self, it will be very requisite to shew, in further confirmation of this Conclusion, That it is so far from being the general a∣greement of the Ancients, that the Fourth Beast in Daniel does signifie any thing else, that it is certainly their almost unanimous Consent, That it is nothing but the Empire of the Romans. This will both take off all suspicion of the strength of the proof that has been given for it, and add a new confirmation of it, from Authority, from the general Consent of all Writers of different Parties, Opinions, and Interests, That it is the most easily offer∣ed from the Prophecy, and the most obvious of any other Inter∣pretation of it.

But that also which makes this Design the more necessary, is, the Rule that the Roman Church has set up for the Orthodox way of interpreting Scripture, in the second Session of the Council of Trent, Can. 3. viz. That none should presume to interpret Scripture against the unanimous Consent of the Fathers: By which we have the Approbation of the chief Adversary in our present Case, for the soundness of any thing that has this Authority for it; and the mouths of all its Members are hereby stopped from op∣posing that which is so confirmed.

For a clearer satisfaction in this, I will give the Tradition of it from the several Writers in every Century of the first Ages after Christ. But for those that may account that either tedious or uncertain, it will be sufficient to hear what the Modern Au∣thors of all Parties have delivered as the common Consent of the Ancients.

As for the Judgment of the most Learned of the Roman Church, it has been particularly shewn, in the Preface to my Second Part, That their best Commentators, Malvenda, Viega, Alcasar, Pererius, do with a great deal of Heat and Zeal affirm, That All find it unquestionable, both Jews and Christians; That it is commonly agreed upon by all that profess the Name of Christ, That it is the common Road, and the King's High-way; That it is the common Opinion of the Learned; That all do interpret it so; viz. That the Fourth Beast in the 7th of Daniel, is the Roman Em∣pire; and look upon it as a perfect madness, and to shew ones felf void of sense, to think otherwise. Gaspar Sanctius gives a re∣markable reason to this purpose, why it is needless to name any of the Ancients of this Opinion; and that is, Because there is no

Body that says otherwise. And this Testimony of the Romanists is so much the more unquestionable, because they can make no ad∣vantage of it by affirming it, but, on the contrary, do thereby grant the main Foundation of their Adversaries Applications of the Revelations to their Church, which makes their Judgment a∣bout the Consent of the Ancients in this, appear to be clear and impartial.

Mr. Mede may be more reasonably suspected of partiality, because of his particular engagements in the Interpretations of the Apocalypse: but yet never do we find his Integrity questioned for misrepresenting the Opinions of the Authors that he quotes. And thus does he speak of the Application of the Fourth Kingdom in the 7th of Daniel, pag. 964.—This has been the constant Tra∣dition of the Church, since the Apostles days to this last saeculum, and was of the Church of the Jews, before and at our Saviour's time, viz. That it was the Roman Empire.

Rabbi Abarbenel's Testimony is sufficient for the Consent of the Jewish Writers, being known to be one of the most Learned of their Nation.—Our Masters (says he) are right in THEIR TRADITION, That the Fourth Beast does signifie the Roman Emperours; whereby it appears to have been the common Tradi∣tion of the Learned Jews.

Here then have we the most impartial Judgment of the Learned Moderns of All Parties, Jews and Christians, That both the Ancient Fathers, and the Ancient Rabbi's are all unanimous in this Interpretation of the Fourth Beast in the 7th of Daniel.

But the most authentick Testimony of the Consent of the An∣cients in this, is that of St. Jerom, who is known to have been the most curious and diligent in his search into the Writings of the Learned in his time, as appears from his Book De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis.—In his Explication of the 7th Chapter of Daniel, after he had animadverted upon Porphyry's Opinion as a perfect madness, who would have the Fourth Beast to be a part of the Grecian Monarchy, he concludes thus:—Let us therefore affirm that which ALL ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS have delivered to us, That about the end of the World, when the King∣dom of the Romans is to be destroyed, there shall be Ten Kings, who shall divide the Roman Empire amongst themselves; and there shall arise after them an eleventh small King, &c. Where we see plainly, that by the Beast its self was universally understood the Roman Em∣pire.

This he affirms to have been an Universal Tradition of Church-writers before him. And what is there almost in the whole Body of our Religion, that has a more Authentick Testi∣mony of being an unquestionable Tradition of the Ʋniversal Church?

And this is further confirmed by the general Custom of the Christians in the first Ages to pray for the Safety of the Roman Empire, lest the Ruin of that should bring on the times of Anti∣christ, and the end of the world, as Tertullian does affirm of them in that known place of his Apology; and Lactantius, Theophylact, St. Jerome, and Oecumenius, are cited by Bellarmin in confirmation of the same general Custom of the Church in After-times. And it is apparent from all the mentions of Antichrist amongst the Fathers, That they make him to be the same with the Little Horn of the Fourth Beast in the 7th of Daniel; which shews, that they made the Fourth Beast to be certainly after the time of the Greek Monarchy, because the end of it with the Little Horn was to bring on the end of the World. Therefore does Erasmus, in his Comment upon cap. 29. lib. 20. Augustin. ad Marcellin. reckon up Lactantius with St. Jerom to affirm, That all Writers had agreed in that Opinion, That the times of Antichrist was to be after the division of the Roman Empire, as it is set out by the Ten Kings and Little Horn of the Fourth Beast.

These Testimonies about the general Sense of the Ancients of all Churches about this Point, may seem to be a sufficient proof of their Judgments about it: But because some of late very * eminent for Learning and Ingenuity, have fancied another In∣terpretation of the Fourth Beast; and especially, because one of them, † as much famed for an Antiquary as any of them, has positively affirmed it to be the general Judgment of the Ancients, That the Fourth Beast is quite another thing than the Romans; it may be more satisfactory, to set down here the Tradition of every Century of the Christian Church concerning this, almost ever since the Romans came to be that Fourth Beast, at their Conquest of the Greek Monarchy.

CHAP. II.

The particular Tradition of the Consent of the Ancients in every Century since the time of Christ, in their Appli∣cation of the Fourth Beast in the 7th of Daniel, to the Reign of the Romans.

FIRST CENTURY.

THE Chaldee Paraphrast on the Prophets, is the most an∣cient Evidence, but Scripture, what was the current Opinion of the times near our Saviour about the Four Monarchies of Daniel; for he both lived about those times, and his Exposition was always reverenced by the Jews, as of so un∣questionable Authority, that none ever dared to contradict it, says Lyranus, in Comment. on cap. 8. Isai. And Galatinus,—That they reverence it almost as much as the Text it self. So that this may be very well accounted the Sense of the whole Body of the Jews in those days.

He has not, indeed, any Comment upon the Book of Daniel: But in his Paraphrase upon the four last Verses of the first Chap∣ter of Zechariah, the Four Horns there, that scattered the Men of Judah and Jerusalem, he determines to be Four Kingdoms capti∣vating the Jews. And so also on the 6th Chapter, v. 5. he men∣tions the same four Kingdoms coming after one another. What he did particularly understand by these four Kingdoms, is plain∣ly expressed in the Paraphrase upon Habakkuk 3. 17. concerning the end of the Nations that should captivate the Jews: For, says he, the Kingdom of Babel shall not remain, nor exercise Dominion in Israel; the Kings of Media shall be slain, and the strong Ones of Grecia shall not prosper; the Romans shall be rooted out, nor shall they gather Tribute at Jerusalem. Now it was always agreed, That whatsoever the Four Kingdoms in the 7^th of Daniel were in particu∣lar, yet that they were four successive Monarchies that should mea∣sure out the whole time of the Captivity of the Church of God from the Babylonian Conquest of the Jews, to the time of the Kingdom of the Son of Man; and that the end of this Captivity was to be at

the end of the Times of the Little Horn, as it is also expresly said, Dan. 12. 7. When therefore Zechariah, who was one of the next Prophets to Daniel in the Captivity, is by the Paraphrast deter∣mined to signifie four successive Kingdoms captivating the Jews, or scattering them (which is Daniel's own expression for it, ibid.) And when the only Conquerours and Enslavers of that Nation are mentioned by the same Paraphrast to be the Babylonian, Per∣sian, Grecian, and Roman Monarchies; it is manifest, That he does thereby determine the four Kingdoms captivating the Church of God in the 7th of Daniel, to be those four Monarchies only; and therefore, That the last of the four is the Roman Monarchy. And this is sufficient to shew it to be then the general Opinion of the Jewish Church at that time, That the fourth Kingdom in the 7th chapter of Daniel, was the Roman Monarchy.

And this Opinion of the Jews in those times, was made to be the Faith of Christians also in those days by our Saviour him∣self, (so far, at least, as to assure that fourth Kingdom not to belong to the Greek Monarchy, which is all the present Con∣cern), in his Prophecies every-where about the Kingdom and Coming of the Son of Man; which has been found unquesti∣onably to be meant of the same Kingdom that in the 7th of Da∣niel is also called, The Kingdom of the Son of Man, and of the Saints, as may be seen in the Proof of the 13th and 14th Propositions. And then that Kingdom of the Son of Man being signified by Christ not then to be come, nor to be expected till at least some while after his Death, that is, not till long after the end of the Greek Monarchy; and yet being described in Daniel to come to the destruction of the Fourth Beast, or Kingdom there, does make it sure, That that Fourth Beast, and Kingdom, could not cer∣tainly be any part of the Reign of the Greek Empire; and there∣fore must it be that which succeeded the Reign of the Greeks, or the Reign of the Romans, if the Third Beast before it were the beginning of the Greek Empire, as it is here by all acknowledg∣ed to be.

A still more particular Determination of the Fourth Beast and Kingdom in Daniel, to the time of the Romans, is that exact Pi∣cture of the same Kingdom in the Revelations of St. John; and that also fixed to Rome, as the Seat of its Empire. See Propos. 15. Which all the Ancients before Constantine looked upon to be so plainly set out as a Roman Domination, that there was no

doubt of it. And this is a lasting Testimony of the Sense of the Christian Church about it in those times. And when St. Paul, before this, describes the last Coming of Christ, as the Son of Man in his Kingdom, 2 Thes. 2. he does it with just the same description of it, and of that eminent Opposer of the Church of God, just before his Coming, as the Coming of the Son of Man is set out in the 7th chapter of Daniel, by the Destruction of the Little Horn of the Fourth Beast, which therefore could no ways belong to the Greek Monarchy that was past. And then, by his appeal to their knowledge of what it was, that did then with∣hold that Enemy from appearing, he plainly intimates, That that Antichrist must come after the time of that Ruling Power of the Romans, which was then Reigning. This also does shew, That it was a commonly-known thing amongst the Christians of those days, that the time of the Fourth Beast, or Kingdom that was next before the Second Coming of Christ, was not then past, as the Greek Empire was. And this may suffice for the Judgment of the Apostolical times, about the Fourth Beast in Daniel.

All these places in the New Testament are still further con∣firmed by the general Sense of Antiquity about them.

Whether the fourth Book of Esdras be of so ancient a date as the first Century, or no; yet that it was writ not long after, may reasonably be presumed from St. Ambrose's Quotation of it in several places, (as a Book of ancient Tradition in his time); As in Epist. ad Horontian. 2. ad Lucam Commentar. And especially in Libro de Bono Mortis; where he questions, Whether that Esdras were not older than Plato?—And the 4th Book of Esdras doth plainly determine the Fourth Beast in Daniel, to be the Roman Em∣pire. 2 Esdr. 12. 11. where the Roman Eagle is called, The Kingdom that was seen by Daniel; and called, chap. 11. 39, 40. The last Remainder of the Four Beasts, &c.

CENTURY II.

It is easie now to demonstrate the Consent of almost every one of the Ecclesiastical Writers in the following Ages, for the Application of the Fourth Beast in Daniel to the Roman Empire, from their Agreement about the time of the Coming of the Son of Man in the 7th of Daniel: For they generally understanding that of the Second Coming of Christ Jesus into the World,

must make the Fourth Beast, or Kingdom that it is there descri∣bed to destroy, to continue till that time, and therefore cer∣tainly not possible to be the Greek Monarchy; and then, since it is as manifest that the first of those four Beasts is said to be Ne∣buchadnezzar's Kingdom, or the Babylonians, the fourth from thence must at farthest be the Romans.

But I will only pick out those amongst them that have men∣tioned something relating to this Fourth Beast, together with that Coming of the Son of Man.

Justin Martyr is the next considerable Remainder of Antiquity after the times of the Apostles: In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, he cites the 7th chapter of Daniel to prove the Second Coming of Christ in Glory to be generally expected by all Christians after the times of that ACCƲRSED One, who is there set out as speaking great words against the Most High; and who is there by Justin judged to be just then at hand, whose time, times, and half a time, he says, Daniel had foretold.—By which it appears, That the Opinion of Justin Martyr was, That the Little Horn of the Fourth Beast did signifie some King, who should appear out of the Empire in which he himself lived; and so did suppose the Fourth Beast to be the Roman Empire.—Trypho does also ac∣knowledge, That that Prophecy did make the Jews expect one like the Son of Man, who should take upon him an Eternal Kingdom; that is, their Messiah; which did plainly exclude the Greek Empire from being any thing of the fourth Kingdom. For upon the end of the Fourth Beast, or Kingdom, in that place of Daniel, immedi∣ately succeeds the Kingdom of the Son of Man; whereas the Greek Empire had then been past for near 200 years, and yet there had been no appearance of their Messiah. And thus have we, in this Testimony, both the Judgment of the Jewish Church in those days about this matter, in Trypho's words; and the Con∣sent of All Christians at that time, in Justin's.

Irenaeus, not long after Justin, lib. 5. cont. Haeres. cap. 21. does first mention Daniel's description of the end of the last of the four Kingdoms, by the division of it amongst the Ten last Kings,—signified by the Ten Horns of the fourth Beast.—And then a little after,—

But yet still much more manifestly hath John, a Disciple of our Lord, set out to us in the Apo∣calypse, the last time of it; and the Ten Kings, who are in it, amongst whom that Empire, which NOW REIGNETH,

shall be divided, declaring what were those Ten Horns that were seen by Daniel.—And again,—Daniel did diligently fore∣signifie the dividing and sharing of the fourth Kingdom at the end of it, by the Ten Toes of the Image.—And speaking of the Number of the Beast, which he had before made to be a time of the fourth Beast in Daniel, cap. 24. he pitches upon Latinos,

—Because his Kingdom, says he, hath that Name; which we know must be the Roman Monarchy.—And Irenaeus's Testimony may pass for the Sense of the most judicious of the Fathers at that time; for he appears to have been the most di∣ligent Searcher into the Book of Daniel, and the Revelations, of any of the first Ages. See lib. 5. contra Haeres. cap. 24. He had enquired of those that had seen St. John face to face, and of those that had given the clearest Reasons for their Expositions of the Revelations, and had examined all the ancient and approved Copies of it.

CENTURY III.

Tertullian, presently after Irenaeus, in his Book against the Jews, after having quoted Daniel cap. 2. about the Second Co∣ming of Christ, adds:—Of which Second Coming, the same Daniel also says, And behold one like the Son of Man, coming in the Clouds of Heaven; which is in the 7th chapter of Daniel, and must therefore by him be expected to come at the end of the Fourth Beast there, of which he says, in his Apology to the Em∣perour,—The Division of the Roman Empire into Ten Kings, brings on Antichrist.—According to the description of the rising up of the 11^th Horn of the 4th Beast after the Ten. And again says, That that time of Antichrist was at hand; which therefore must be in the time of the Roman Kingdom, and so must the Fourth Beast, to which that Horn did belong, be the same Kingdom.

Hippolytus Martyr. de consummatione Mundi.]—

I bring, says he, the testimony of a Witness worthy to be believed, the Prophet Daniel, cap. 2, & cap. 7. where he says, That the first Beast signifies the Babylonian Kingdom, and the fourth signifies the Romans. And then, about the Ten Horns,—Who are these, but the Empire of the Romans, and the Little Horn, Antichrist?

—And a ltttle before,—

This Prophecy will persuade all that have any judgment in them, That the four Kingdoms in the 2d and 7th chapter, are the same.

St. Cyprian. lib. 2. adversus Judaeos,—

speaking of the Stone, Christ, who in the last times shall become a Mountain in re∣ference to the Kingdom of the God of Heaven, Dan. 2. which was to succeed the 4th Kingdom there.—And ad Novatia∣num, upon that of St. Jude, ver. 14. Behold the Lord cometh with Thousands of his Saints, says, It is just the same with the Description in Daniel, cap. 7. v. 9, 10.

Which shows his Opini∣on of the Fourth Kingdom, which was to come before it, to be, That it was not yet past, and therefore not the Greek Empire; and there was nothing else that it could then be, but the Roman.

Lactantius, soon after him, hath a particular Application of the times of the Fourth Beast, and of all the Account of it in Da∣niel, to the Roman Empire, lib. 7. cap. 16.

CENTURY IV.

Methodius in his Revelations upon that of St. Paul, 2 Thes. 2. 6.—What is it then (says he) that shall be taken away, but the Ro∣man Empire? Which refers to that Man of Sin, who is there de∣scribed by the Apostle, as the same with the little Horn of the Fourth Beast in Daniel.

Athanasius in Synops. de S. Scriptor.—Daniel also (says he)

saw Visions of the Consummation; two about the Kingdoms, (viz. cap. 2, & 7.) and two more about the Coming of Christ, and the Destruction of Jerusalem, and about the Coming of Antichrist, (viz. cap. 9, & cap. 11.)

—So that by the Con∣summation-Visions of the Kingdoms, he must understand the Prophecies of the Successions of the Four Monarchies to the end of the World; and therefore that the Fourth could not be the Grecian, but the Roman.

Eusebius Caesariensis is said by Jerom to have wrote three Vo∣lumes, and Apollinarius five, against Porphyry, who made the Fourth Beast to be the Reign of the Greeks after Alexander, against all the current of Interpreters before, who had determined it to be the Roman. See Jerom's Preface before Daniel.

Victorinus (supposed to be Afer) in Apocalypsin. c. 13. upon the mention of the Ten Crowned Horns, chap. 13.—

These Ten Horns (says he) and Ten Crowns, Daniel also did set forth before, and that Antichrist should pull up Three of them.

—After he had before interpreted that Beast and its Horns of the Roman Em∣pire.

Chrysostom on 2 Thessalon. 2. 6. speaking of that that did with∣hold the coming of the Man of Sin, after he had determined it to be the Roman Empire, adds:—

For as the Babylonians and Medes were destroyed, who were before the Roman Empire, so shall this Empire it self be ruined by Antichrist, and He by Christ.

—And this doth Daniel deliver to us with great Evi∣dence.

CENTURY V.

Isidorus Pelusiota, in his 218th Epistle, says thus of the Vision of the Four Beasts in the 7th of Daniel:—

That Vision of the Divine Daniel, so generally known and talked of in all places, does compare the Monarchies of the Assyrians, the Medes, and Macedonians, to a Lion, a Bear, and a Leopard. But the Fourth Beast sets forth the Roman Empire.

And Sulpicius Severus Sacr. Histor. lib. 2. has the same Four Kingdoms specified, as foretold by Daniel in the four Metals of the Statue in the 2d Chapter, which have the same Characters with those in the 7th.

Jerom is so much of this Opinion himself in his Comment up∣on Daniel, that almost all his design in it is to expose Porphyry the Philosopher, for interpreting the Fourth Beast, and the Little Horn of it, to be the Greek Empire, and Antiochus Epiphanes in it: And to shew the Paradoxicalness of that Interpretation, he says upon the latter-end of the 11th Chapter, That all Ecclesiastical Writers did understand the Fourth Beast, and the Ten Horns, and Eleventh little One in it, of the Roman Empire, and the di∣viding it among Ten Kings, and of Antichrist that should sub∣due Three of them.

And when he heard that Rome was taken by the Barbarous Nations, he concluded, that the Man of Sin was just at hand, in relation to the Ten Kings, and the Little Horn. Epist. ad Gau∣dentium.

Theodoret, after him, is so clear in this, all over his Comment upon Daniel, that it must be transcribed, to take all that he says about it.—

He Wonders how any Men of Learning could make the Fourth Beast to be the Macedonian Kingdom, when the Greek Empire was so expresly represented in the 8th Chapter, by the He-Goat with the Four Horns, and applied to it by the Angel, and when the Third Beast in the 7th

Chapter had four Heads to set out the same thing.

Comment. in cap 7. Daniel.

But what can our Modern Interpreters answer to that of his, against the Jews in his time, who were much of the same Opi∣nion in their Application of the Fourth Beast, and the Little Horn, to the Greek Empire, and that of the Kingdom of the Son of Man to the return of the persecuted Jews?—

Very properly (says he) may that be applied to these Jews, that which the Prophet hath long since said of them,—And thou hast put on an Whores forhead, and refusest to be ashamed,

Jeremiah 3. 3. Ibidem.

Cyril. Hierosolymitanus, and Ambrose upon the 2 Thessalon. 2. 6, 7. speaking of the time that the Man of Sin was to be revealed,—When the times of the Roman Empire shall be fulfilled, says one; and the other, That he should appear after the falling of the Roman Empire into pieces.

Andreas Bishop of Caesarea, some while at least after the time of St. Basil, whom he quotes cap. 44. in Apocalyps. at the men∣tion of the Ten Horns of the Beast in the Revelations, chap. 17.—These Ten Horns, or Kings, (says he) Daniel also saw.—And then determines Babylon (the City of the Beast, and the Kings) to be Rome, according to the Opinion of the ANCIENT

DO∣CTORS, for many reasons; but CHIEFLY, because on the Fourth Beast in Daniel, that is, the Roman Empire, were seen the Ten Horns;—And also because Antichrist, when he comes, is to appear as King of the Romans, ƲNDER PRE∣TENCE OF RESTORING THEIR EMPIRE.

Whence he makes it the Consent of the Ancient Doctors, That the Fourth Beast is the Roman Empire, an Argument to prove the Beast of the Revelatious, that was like it, to be so too; and therefore Babylon to be Rome.

So also does Arethas Bishop of Cappadocia, in his Comment up∣on the Revelat. chap. 13. refer the show of the Beast with the Ten Horns there, to that of the Fourth Beast in Daniel; and ap∣plies it to the Roman Empire.

But Pope Gregory the Great does more positively apply the Reign of the Little Horn, to his own times; which was certainly a time of Roman Rule. In his 38 Epist. ad Constant. lib. 4. he applies all the Prophecy of Daniel concerning the Little Horn, or Antichrist, to those that would arrogate to themselves the Title

of the Bishops of the whole Roman Empire, as the Bishop of Con∣stantinople did then pretend.—

The King of Pride, says he, is near at hand; And, which ought hardly to be spoken, he has also an Ar∣my of Priests prepared for him;

in allusion to the Little Horn, as the same with The Beast in the Revelations, who was accompa∣nied, and assisted by the False Prophet.

Because after this, there is no different mention of any other Interpretation of the Fourth Beast in Daniel, Ambrosius Ausber∣tus may be the general Representative of the Opinion of all those of latter date, till the time of the Reformation—He, upon the 13th Chapter of the Revelations, makes the Beast under the healed Head, to be the same with the Little Horn of the Fourth Beast in Daniel.—And upon the 17th Chapter compares that Beast with the Fourth Beast in Daniel;—And there adds—For what can be understood by the Fourth Beast, but the Roman Empire, in which those Ten Kings are mentioned, after whom Antichrist is to arise?

It may therefore now be safely concluded, as the least that can be inferred from these Testimonies of the Ancients, That never was any Learned Man more mistaken about a matter of Fact, of which he could hardly avoid the having a clear satis∣faction about, than Sir John Marsham has been in his Judgment about this part of the Visions of Daniel.

CHAP. III.

What the Ancients do expresly agree in about the Schemes of the Fourth Beast. in the 7th of Daniel. Why they much differed from one another in some particular Cha∣racters of it. The Ʋse that is to be made of their Ʋnanimous Agreement in some things. The Necessary Consequences of what the Ancients do expresly a∣gree in.

FRom the preceding Testimonies of the Fathers, it appears, That however different the Ancients might have been in particular Opinions about the Fourth Beast in the 7th Chapter of Daniel, yet they are found unanimously to agree in these Ge∣neral Conclusions.

• 1. That the notion of the Fourth Beast in general, as the common subject of all its Horns, is, The Roman Mo∣narchy.
• 2. That the Ten Horns of it, are a division of that Monarchy into so many several Kingdoms under Ten Kings.
• 3. That the Little Horn of that Beast is Antichrist, that should have a Kingdom within the bounds of the Roman Empire.
• 4. That the Kingdom of Antichrist should continue, till it should be destroyed by the Second Coming of Christ, after the time that they wrote in.

Victorinus was indeed singular about the last of these. For he judged Antichrist to have been a single Emperor of Rome about the time of the Vision. But that was esteemed as very extrava∣gant by others.

Some think (says Augustine ad Marcellin. Lib. 20. cap. 19.) that Nero is meant by the Man of Sin, 2 Thessal. 2. 4. But I extremely admire at their presumption, or their rash Con∣jectures.

Many other Agreements of the Ancients about these matters are instanced in by Bellarmine, Lib. 3. de Pontifice, some of which

must indeed be granted; But they are such, as are no ground of concluding upon the sense of the place to which they refer; be∣cause they themselves do often acknowledge themselves to be in∣capable Judges of the determinate Signification of those things, upon the account of their ignorance of the Event, that they re∣ferred to, and by which alone they apprehended them capable of being certainly known.

Thus Theodoret upon the 12th Chapter of Daniel 8, 9. where the Prophet professes he understood not what he heard; And the Angel confirms it to be, because the words were sealed up; but af∣terwards many should understand—explains it thus—

But when the thing shall come to pass, they shall plainly understand the things that were foretold.

So also Andreas Caesariensis, concerning the number of the name of the Beast, Revel. 13.—

The exact knowledge (says he) of the number, and of every thing else besides, that is delive∣red about Antichrist, Time and Experience will discover to Pru∣dent and Sober Enquirers.

And Irenaeus upon the same matter judges it to have been on purpose concealed, that it might not be known, till it came to be fulfilled—And after Cautions put in against Conjectures—

'Tis therefore, (says he) much the surer way to stop our Conjectures till the Prophecy be fulfilled.—

And this is given as a general Rule for every thing of this nature, that is not very plain and clear before the Event; By which it appears, That the Fathers did not think themselves in a capacity to determine the meaning of the particular Circum∣stances in the Prophecies about Antichrist, because they were generally agreed, that he was still to come; And that therefore the particular Characters of his appearance did depend upon E∣vents in after-times for the clear understanding them.

Now all those Opinions, for which Bellarmin cites the Consent of the Fathers, are such as depend upon this Supposition; That the Time, Times, and the dividing of Time, which is the time as∣signed to the continuance of the Little Horn in the 7th of Da∣niel, do not signify any longer time than Three years and an half, according to the common acceptation of A Time in the Pro∣phecy of Daniel.

Upon this account it is, that many Fathers have agreed, that Antichrist must be a single Person; and consequently, That the

Ten Kings signified by the Ten Horns, must also be so many single Kings, as well as the Little Horn, that denotes Antichrist; It is also for this reason, that they agree, That the Roman Em∣pire must be ruined at his appearance, by the Ten Kings, viz. because by this his Time is made to be but Three years and an half before the end of the World, or the Second Coming of Christ, unto which the time of the Little Horn is described to continue.

The Fathers indeed might easily be induced to take the Times, or 1260 days of Antichrist, in the literal sense; because they li∣ving under the Reign of the Sixth Head of the Beast, which had ruled from the time of the Vision, they saw no necessity for that sense, in which days and weeks are used amongst the Pro∣phets, and so were then obliged to judge according to the First Rule of all sound Interpretation. Chap. 2. Book I. of this Part.

But the Agreement of the Fathers in these things, is not so perfectly Ʋnanimous, as Bellarmin would make it to be.

Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew concern∣ing this very place in Daniel, tells him, That by A Time, the Jews themselves understand sometimes an 100 years, accor∣ding to which (says he) the Man of Sin must needs reign 355 years.

And Augustin. ad Marcellin. Lib. 20. cap. 19.—Some (says he) understand by the Man of Sin, not one Prince only, but, as it were, an whole Body, that is, a great Multitude of Men.

And Primasius, speaking of the Beast, and the False Prophet, that is, says he, the Devil, and Antichrist, or his Chief Ru∣lers, and his whole Body.

So also do we find in the Testimonies of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolitus, Lactantius, Victorinus, Jerom, that they made the Ten Horns of the Beast to be no more than a Division of the Roman Empire; whereas Bellarmin pretends, that the Fa∣thers are agreed, that they signify the utter destruction of that Empire.

And Andreas Caesariensis does expresly contradict him in this in his Testimony; where he says,

That most of the Ancient Doctors

did understand Ten Kings of the Roman Empire, by the Ten Horns of the Beast.

There are many other things, for which Bellarmin brings the Consent of the Fathers, in which he has been found to be much mistaken; particularly by Bishop Andrews. Respons. ad Bellarmin.

Now from the former Considerations about the Agreement, and the differences of the Opinions of the Ancients, it may be observed, That their Testimonies about things that the Church has not positively defined, as the present case is, are of the na∣ture of all other humane Testimony. Where they all agree in a sense of which they were capable Judges in their time, it is a very great presumption, that it is the plain and obvi∣ous sense of that place; But where they differ from one another, their Authority is to be resolved into the strength of the grounds of their particular Opinions: And those amongst them who in any particular circumstances speak things contradictory to what was so generally agreed on from the plain evidence of the Text, may be as little our concern, as the Paradoxical Opinions of some Learned Men in our own Age. They themselves, we have seen, do acknowledge themselves uncapable Judges of most of the things in the Prophecy of Antichrist, and the absolute need there was of further time and experience of the Events, to be able to speak with any likelihood of truth about them.

The use therefore that is to be made of these Agreements of the Ancients about the places of the Prophecy, of which they were capable Judges at that time, is, To confirm the natural sense that is offered from the Text, and not to give any a prejudice against new senses of the Prophecy about such things in this Age, so many Ages since it was wrote: And as strong a presumption is it against the fixing of the full accomplishment of the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Revelations, to any Events before, or in the time of the Fathers, to see them so generally to agree in their silence about any such Interpretation. It would indeed be matter of astonishment to us, if the things of these Prophecies should have been past before the times of these Learned Inqui∣rers into the meaning of them; And yet that they should una∣nimously agreee, that they were not to be fulfilled till a long time after.

From the General Agreement of the Ancients in the things at first mentioned, these seem to be necessary Consequences, that they must be supposed to own.

1. That by the Fourth Beast in the 7th of Daniel, must be understood a Kingdom of the Romans to the last end of the Beast, with all its Horns. For by the same reason that they took that Beast to be the Roman Monarchy in any part of its time, they must also own it to be the same in all the mentions of it, or in any time of its Horns; As the Third Beast is the Kingdom of the Greeks in in all the time of its four Heads, or its four Horns, cap. 7. & cap. 8. They were all said in the 8th Chapter, to be the King of Grecia: that is, One Ruling Nation at first united, and afterwards divided. And therefore the Little Horn, and the Ten of the Fourth Beast, must be as much Roman Sove∣reigns, as the Little Horn, and the five other in the He-Goat, Chap. 8. were Graecian Rulers.

And this shews how contradictory it was to the notion of the Fourth Beast, in which all the Fathers agreed, to make the Ten Kings in it, to be Destroyers and Ruiners of the Roman Kingdom, as some of the Fathers did imagine. And therefore by the Ruine of the Roman Empire, they must be understood to mean nothing but the ruining the entire form of it, as the breaking a thing in pieces is called the ruine and destruction of it; but no more the end of the Roman Kingdom, than the four Horns of the Goat were the end of the Kingdom of the Greeks.

2. From hence also does it follow, That the Ten Horns, and the Little Horn of the Fourth Beast, are a time of Roman Rule.

3. That the Kingdom of Antichrist, or the Little Horn of the Fourth Beast, is to begin among the Romans, after the divi∣sion of that Monarchy into Ten Kingdoms, and is to continue from its first Rise to the Second Coming of Christ in Glory. For the Little Horn continues with the Fourth Beast till it is de∣stroyed by the Kingdom of the Son of Man.

4. That the notion of a Beast all over Daniel, is the Monarchy of one Conquering Nation only from the time of its Conquest to the last end of it. For there is a general Agreement, that the other Three Beasts in the 7th of Daniel, do signify the Babylonian, Persian and Graecian Monarchies, till they came to be subdued. And the

Two Beasts in the 8th Chapter are said expresly to be of the same kind; The Ram is called the Kings of Media and Persia; and the Two Horns, are represented as rising up the one after the other, to denote the succession of the Persian to the Median Line, till he is there subdued by the He-goat: The He-goat also, tho he be called the King of Greece in the single Person, yet is said to have four Kings succeeding after one great one, set forth by a first great Horn, and four rising up after it, and is described to continue to the latter time of that Kingdom, whose Character is owned to be the fourfold Kingdom.

5. That the signification of Heads and Horns of Beast all over Daniel, is, The several Supreme Powers in that Nation, which [ 1] is represented in general by the Beast. If these Heads, or Horns, be said to come one after another, they denote a succession of so ma∣ny [ 2] different Supreme Magistracies in the same place; But if re∣presented as rising up altogether, they signify the division of that [ 3] Nation into so many distinct Sovereignties, or Kingdoms; And also the continuance of each Succession of the Successive Heads, or [ 4] Horns, and the continuance of each division of the Contemporary Heads, or Horns, till the change of either of them.

This all agree in, about the four Heads of the Leopard in the 7th Chapter, which signify so many distinct Kingdoms in the Greek Monarchy; and about the successive Horns of the Ram in the 8th Chapter, which signify the Succession of the Persian to the Median Government in the same Nation of the Medes and Persians; according as that Kingdom is called both under the Median, and under the Persian Kings, as thrice in Daniel 6. un∣der the Medes, and all over the Book of Esther in the time of the Persians. The Horns of the He-goat also in the 8th Chapter, are agreed to represent first the united Monarchical Government of the Greeks under one King, and then the Succession of the four∣fold Kingdom of the Greeks after it.

'Tis true, the Little Horn coming out of one of the four in the 8th Chapter (agreed to be but one single King) makes no change in that fourfold Kingdom, though he be described as coming after the four. But then it is plainly intimated, that he is not an Horn distinct from the other four, but only a part of that, out of which he is said to come, and not to come after it.

Wherefore here are eleven acknowledged Instances of the proof of the beforementioed Rule about the signification of Heads, and Horns; And then for the remaining Ten Horns of the Fourth Beast, and Little One after them in the 7th Chap∣ter, there wants nothing to assure their conformity to it, but to prove, that they belong to the same Nation that is represented by the Fourth Beast there. And that is assured from the pre∣ceding Consequence. For these Horns are but parts of that Beast, which in the whole time of it, signifies but one Nation only.

The Fathers indeed do seem generally to agree, That the Lit∣tle Horn of the Fourth Beast, and consequently the Ten before him, can be nothing but Roman Powers, whatsoever is pretended to the contrary. Andreas Caesariensis, in his Testimony before∣cited, expresly says,

That the Ancient Doctors made Babylon in the Revelations to be Rome, because they looked upon the Beast there (whose City Babylon is) to be the same with the Little Horn upon the Fourth Beast, or the Roman Empire.

And Bel∣larmin does as good as say the same, Lib. 3. de Pontif. c. 16. The Fathers say, that Antichrist was to come as a Monarch of that Empire, the Seat of which had been at Rome.

Thus for instance, When Justin Martyr tells Trypho that Anti∣christ (signified by the Little Horn) was just at hand when the Roman Empire was then flourishing, who could understand that of any thing but the Roman Empire? When Irenaeus guesses his name to be Latinos, because that, he says, was the name of his Kingdom, he does plainly fix him upon the Romans. When Tertullian makes the Ten Kings of the Roman Empire to bring on Antichrist, and says, That his time is at hand, that is, in the height of the Roman Empire, he intimates the same thing. Hip∣polytus makes him to arise amongst the Ten Kings, whom he calls the Kings of the Roman Empire. Cyprian, and all the Fa∣thers, that make the Kingdom of the Stone, or of the God of Heaven, in the 2d Chapter of Daniel, the same with that of the Son of Man in the 7th Chapter, must also judge the Fourth Kingdom before it, in each to be the same; And the Fourth Kingdom in the 2d Chapter is said to be the same Kingdom in substance, when it was entire, and when divided, verse 40, 41. Lactantius applies the whole account of the Fourth Beast to the

Roman Empire. Victorinus doth certainly seat Antichrist, or the Little Horn, amongst the Roman Rulers.

Those indeed that came after the time of Augustine, did ma∣ny of them think, that Antichrist was to destroy all the Power of Rome. The only ground that they alledge for it, is, That in the Second Epistle of the Thessalonians, chap. 2. where it is said, That that did withhold at the present time, must be taken away, and then should the Man of Sin be Revealed. This that did with-hold, they Interpreted to be the Roman Empire. And yet since they afterwards Interpret Babylon in the Revelations, to be Rome, which is openly described to be the City of Antichrist (the same with the little Horn) whom they agreed to continue till about the end of the World, they did thereby plainly shew, that they meant nothing else by the taking away of the Roman Em∣pire in the forecited place, but only the change of the Monarchical Imperial form of it, not the last end of all Roman Rule; According as Tertullian says, that they prayed for the Lives of the Emperors to put off the coming of Antichrist in the end of the World. As for those amongst them that did not understand Rome by Babylon, we see that the Jesuits themselves look upon them as extra∣vagant in it.

Wherefore the Ten Horns, and the Little one after them, may now be counted by the express Consent of the Fathers, as con∣formable to the General Rule for all the rest of their kind.

6. It does also now appear from this Agreement of the Fathers concerning Beasts, and their parts, signifying Domi∣nion, That they had no other mark for their difference be∣twixt either Successive, or Contemporary Horns, but only the different Changes of the Supream Civil Power of Monarchies.

7. Nor any other constitutive difference betwixt Successive Heads or Horns, but a different name or title of the Supream Power. The second Horn of the Ram was distinguished from the first only by the name of the King of Persia, instead of that of Media, over the same Nation, Dan. 8. 3, 20.

8. And by their Agreement, that the four Heads of the Leopard in the 7th Chapter, was the same time of Graecian Empire with the four Horns of the He-goat in the 8th Chap∣ter, it appeared, That they made Heads and Horns to be promis∣cuously used for the same thing in different Schemes of the same Monarchy.

CHAP. IV.

The Agreements of the Ancients about the Beast in the Revelations. Eight Queries about the Necessary Con∣sequences of the Ancients Consent concerning the Fourth Beast in Daniel, and the Beast in tbe Revelations, for the more particular determination of the Characters of the Beast in the Revelations. The Reason of the Con∣trariety of some of the Opinions of the Fathers, to their general Agreements about the Fourth Beast in the 7th of Daniel, and the Beast in the Revelations. The Application of the Beast, to the Roman Church in all Ages.

THE Consent of the Ancients about the nature of the Fourth Beast in the 7th of Daniel, and the necessary Consequences of what they expresly consent in, do discover what they must agree in concerning the Beast in the Revelations. For,

1. The Fathers are well enough known to make that which from the 13th, to the end of the 19th Chapter of the Revelations, is peculiarly called The Beast (as one particular state of it only in the latter time of it) to be that, to which they give the name of Antichrist. See Andreas Caesariensis.

2. They do upon this account make that particular Reign of the Beast in the Revelations, to be the same with the Reign of the Little Horn of the Fourth Beast in Daniel, the same with the Man of Sin in the 2d Chapter of the Second Epistle to the Thessalo∣nians, the same also with the Bustling King in Daniel 11. 36. For as they called all these by the name of Antichrist, so Bellarmin as∣sures us, lib. 3. de Pontif. cap. 1. That by the common consent of all Christians, by Antichrist is understood but one certain Eminent False Christ. In the Testimony also of Andreas Caesariensis may be seen the Agreement of the Ancient Doctors, That The Beast in the Revelations, and the Little Horn in the 7th of Daniel, were the same thing, because they accounted them both to be Antichrist.

3. The Fathers do also own with the Text, the seven Heads of the Beast to be successive Ruling Powers, five of which were past at the time of the Vision, one of them at that time in being, and two Kings more which were to come to make up the whole Seven, the latter of which Two was to be such an Eighth, as should be one of the Seven.

4. They did also agree that Babylon, that went along with the Beast in the Revelations, was the City of Rome. This appears from Andreas Caesariensis's Testimony, and Bellarmin's Quotations of the Fathers for this Exposition, Lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 2. where he concludes it to be the Opinion of the Fathers, That John in the Apocalypse did every-where call Rome, Babylon.

Now from the forementioned Particulars, in which the An∣cients are found generally to agree about the Fourth Beast in the 7th Chapter of Daniel, and the Beast in the Revelations; and from the immediate, and necessary Consequences before deduced from them, I would propound it to the Impartial Considera∣tion of all the World, whether to make the Ancients constant to themselves, they ought not to be judged to agree also in those unavoidable Consequences of the Conclusions, in which they are so unanimous.

That the general Notion of the Beast in the Revelations, as it [Query 1] is the common subject of its Heads and Horns, must signify, the Particular Monarchy of the Romans, till the last ruine of it. This does necessarily follow, 1st, From the fourth Consequence of their Agreements about the Fourth Beast in the 7th of Daniel. For by that the general Notion of every Beast is to be some Parti∣cular Monarchy to the last end of it. And 2dly, From their Unanimous Agreement about Babylon in the Apocalypse before∣mentioned, which does necessarily determine it to be the Roman Monarchy.

Wherefore if some of the Fathers have interpreted the Beast in the Revelations to signify, a great Multitude of Kingdoms, tyrannizing over the Church of God, They do plainly contra∣dict that, which before they had agreed to be the natural and obvious signification of A Beast in Prophecy, by the almost Unanimous Consent of all Interpreters, that is, a particular Kingdom only; Whereas in this way, they make one Beast sig∣nify as many, as a multitude of Beasts every-where else;

and for which also they do not alledge any the least warrant from the Text.

Whether the Ancients must not, according to their other ge∣neral [Query 2] Agreements, make the Heads and Horns of the Beast in the Revelations to be so many Sovereign Powers amongst the Romans; [ 1] and the Heads to be so many several kinds of Supream Magistracy [ 2] over the same Jurisdiction of the Romans? For they are de∣scribed to succeed one another. Revelat. 17. 10, 11. And the Ten Horns of the Beast to be the Division of the Roman Monar∣chy into Ten really distinct Kingdoms. (For they are represen∣ted [ 3] to be in power all at a time. Revel. 17. 12, 13.) According to the fifth Consequence of their Agreement about the Figure of Daniel.

Those therefore of the Fathers, who make the seven Heads to be either so many Ages of the World, or so many distinct Monar∣chies, do contradict their Agreement with the rest about the like Figures in Daniel; And when others make the Ten Horns to be the dissolution of the Roman Empire, though they were the Ten Horns of that Beast, that signifies the Roman Empire to the last end of it, they forget how inconsistent they are with them∣selves.

Whether by the common Consent of the Fathers in their other [Query 3] Agreements, the Beast in the Revelations, as it is the particular state of the Beast under its last Ruling Head, can be any thing but a Roman Sovereign? For it is an Head of the Roman Beast, and therefore by the former Consequence must be a Sovereign of the Romans: It is also the same with the Little Horn of the Fourth Beast in Daniel, which by Consequence the second, Chapter the 3d, is a Roman Sovereign.

Whether the Agreements of the Fathers do not necessarily [Query 4] make the 6th Head of the Beast to be the whole Imperial Government of Rome? They agree, that the 6th Head was (according to the Text) in power at the time of the Vision; And it must then be either the Roman Emperor, or the Imperial Government; but it could not possibly be the single person of any Roman Emperor. For then the next single Em∣peror but one must have been the 8th King, called the Beast; Whereas the Fathers are found to agree, that Antichrist, the same with the Beast, or 8th King, was not come into power in their time, which was never the succession of many single Em∣perors

from the time of the Vision. Besides, By the 5th Con∣sequence of their Agreements about the Figures of Daniel. Chap. 3. They make every Head and Horn of Beast to contain in it all the single Rulers of the same kind.

Whether, according to the agreeing Judgment of the An∣cients, [Query 5] the Sixth Head of the Beast must not be the Imperial Government of Rome, till at least the taking away of that Form of Government in that Jurisdiction? For by the 5th Consequence of their Agreements. Chap. 3. An Head, or Horn of Beast sig∣nifies a kind of Supream Power in a Nation to the last end of that kind of Magistracy, or Kingdom.

And therefore those of the Fathers, that made the Sixth Head to be at an end at the Change of the Imperial Power from Paganism to Christianity, did contradict the Unanimous Con∣sent of all the rest with themselves about the nature of every Head and Horn in Daniel, which they made to be one kind of Su∣pream Civil Power to the last end of it, without any regard to the different behaviour of some of the single Persons of that kind towards the Church of God, in comparison with others. The Favour and Protection of the Jews from some of the Babylonian, Persian, Graecian Kings, did not in the Fathers Opinion make different Heads, or Horns of the Beasts, to which they did belong.

Whether, according to the Opinions of the Ancients, in [Query 6] which they unanimously agreed, The Seventh King, or Head, must not be that which changed the Imperial Power of Rome at the end of the Western Emperors? For the Imperial Government [Query 4] of the Romans was certainly the Sixth Head; and that must then necessarily be either that Imperial Government only, which was particularly owned by the Senate, and People, and Clergy of Rome; or the whole Imperial Government of the Roman Empire, over Rome, Constantinople, Britain, &c. Now at the Fall of the Western Emperors in Augustulus, there was a Change of the Im∣perial Form of Roman Government, whichsoever of these kinds was the Sixth Head. For the Barbarous Kings, that succeeded, [ 1] were owned as the sole Sovereigns of Rome, by the Pope, Senate, People and Clergy. And if it were the whole Imperial Govern∣ment [ 2] at Rome▪ and Constantinople, which was the Sixth Head, then the Change of it into the mixt form of Imperial, and Kingly Government of Rome, or of the Romans, by the owning the Go∣thish

Kings as the Sovereigns of the Western Part, must be the Seventh King. For they were as much a part of the Supream Power of the Romans, as the Western Emperors, which they suc∣ceeded. And it has been found by the 6th and 7th Necessary Consequences of the Agreeing Opinions of the Fathers, That a new Name of the Civil Sovereign Power of a Nation, does con∣stitute a new Successive Head or Horn of a Beast. So is it in the last Horn of the Ram, Chap. 8. which is agreed by the Fathers to be the Change of the name of the King of Media, to that of the King of Persia, though the King of Persia was also King of Media, who was the first Horn. And so was it in the four Horns of the He-goat, ibidem. Though one of these four be the same with the first Horn. And the Change of the whole pure Impe∣rial Goverment into that of either Kingly alone at Rome, or into that of the mixt form of Kingly and Imperial, over the whole remaining Empire, was as real a new appearance of the Sove∣reign Power of the Romans, as either of those two Instances.

After this, it is not to be questioned, but that according to [Query 7] the Fathers, The Eighth King called the Beast, and Antichrist, must be that Sovereign Civil Power of the Romans, which suc∣ceeded the Barbarous Kings at Rome. For that must be the King that was next to the Seventh. And this exactly agrees with the Text; For the Eighth King, called The Beast, is said to be of the Seven; As the Imperial Government restored by Justinian, who subdued the Italian Kings, was the Eighth Change of the Sovereign Power of Rome, but really nothing but the Sixth Head restored again.

It does also as necessarily follow from the Agreements of the [Query 8] Fathers about the constitutive difference of Heads and Horns from one another; That that which is represented by the False Prophet, cannot be the same thing with that which is called the Beast; viz. Because the Beast is really nothing but an Head of the Beast, which by consequence the 6th, Chap. 3. does denote a Civil Power of the Romans; whereas the False Prophet is de∣scribed as an Ecclesiastical Power, employed in the service of that Civil Power. See Revelat. 13, 12, 14.

But yet they might very well agree, That the Beast, and the False Prophet, might be used promiscuously to signify the really distinct Actions of one another; because they were joined toge∣ther in one Confederacy; And the names of any Confederates,

or Partners, in any thing, are commonly used to express the Actions of one another in the common Design. So Primasius upon the 13th of the Revelations, concerning them both—

Both of them, says he, are every-where to be understood in conjunction—And presently after—It is manifest, that both the Beasts are one and the same body (of men) and exercise the same wicked Worship; so that the First is said to fight for the false Shows of the Second.

Thus I have drawn down the Consequences of the General Consent of the Ancients, to mine own particular Opinion concern∣ing the first date of the Rise of the Beast, and the particular Roman Power that is now signified by that Term.

But that which is to be observed for the General Confirma∣tion of the Conclusion, in which almost all Protestants agree in, is, That if it be sure, as may appear from the 4th Query, That the Sixth Head of the Beast is the Imperial Government at the time of the Vision, then there need nothing be granted to prove the Beast and the False Prophet to be the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power of Rome at this present, but only to demonstrate from History, That there has certainly been two Changes of the Sovereign Power of the Romans since the time of St. John. For they did agree, That Antichrist, from his first appearance, must continue till the Second Coming of Christ; and that the next Change of the Sovereignty of the Romans but one, after the time of the Vision, must be the Eighth King, or the Beast, and Antichrist; And therefore at the beginning of the last of those two Changes of the Government of the Romans, since the time of St. John, must the Kingdom of Antichrist have begun, whensoever that does appear from History to have happened.

And whatsoever the Fathers have delivered contrary to this, concerning the Time, Times, and half a Time of the Beast, as but three years and an half, must have been acknowledged by them to contradict their General Agreements in other things more plain; and from Experience, which they often mention, as the only means to determine the meaning of some Mystical Expres∣sions that regarded future Times, they would have learnt that those Times were necessarily to be understood in a Mystical Sense, and not as they ordinarily signify; according to the frequent Examples in Scripture of such a Mystical Signification of parts of time, and the true Rule of Interpretation in such like Cases.

For a clearer satisfaction about the contrariety and inconsi∣stency of some of the particular Opinions of the Fathers, with the Conclusions in which they agree with the Unanimous Judg∣ment of the rest; it may be convenient to inquire into the grounds, or reasons of their Paradoxical Fancies about the Beast in the Revelations, which contradicted the General Agreement about the signification of A Beast, and its Ruling Parts, in the Prophecy of Daniel.

For this purpose it is in the first place to be considered, That it is a true Observation of the Learned Grotius, That the Reason why the Apocalypse was not added at first to the rest of the Books of the New Testament, which did afterwards give ground for que∣stioning the Canonical Authority of it, was, That it did so openly point at the Roman Government, as the great Enemy of God, that it lay concealed in a few hands amongst the Christians of the first times, for fear of exasperating the Romans against them. This does St. Chrysostome, and Augustine make to be the ground, why St. Paul spoke so mysteriously about the Roman Empire in his Prophecy about Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2. 6. when he says, And now ye know, what doth withhold; the Reason they give for it, is, That if the Apostle had openly named the Romans, they would have accounted him, and all the Faithful, very pestilent Mem∣bers of their Government.

This fear of the then Ruling Power, together with the Professi∣ons of their ignorance of the application of the Characters of Anti∣christ, because they look'd upon their times as not at all concerned in those things, may be very reasonably judged to be the cause of the little care that the Fathers took to be wary in the Interpretati∣ons that they gave of this Book. For they esteemed it to be both a dangerous study, and also relating to things that they could not well judge of; and also to future times, in which they should not share; And might therefore (as Chrysostome, and Augustine do expresly say) bring themselves unnecessarily into great danger. And Jerom, in his Answer to 11. q. ad Algasiam, and Primasius upon 2 Thess. 2. 6. to the same purpose. This Account may the more easily be allowed from the general neglect of the Book of the Apocalypse, even in this Age, to which the chief things in it are by the severest Examiners of the Sense of Scripture judged to belong; so as to be even laid aside out of the Calendar for the daily readings of Scripture by Protestants themselves, † who

nevertheless do give the present Church of Rome the name of Babylon.

It is then no great wonder, That Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, and some other of the Fathers, whilst the Roman Government con∣tinued Pagan, should be so willing to make the Beast in general to be the World, and the Seven Heads of it to be seven Wicked Ages of the World, as the sum, or Recapitulation (as Irenaeus calls it) of all the Apostate times; For in that way, the Sixth Head, said in the Prophecy to be then in being, was not more applied to the Romans, than to all the other Wicked Nations in the World at that time; and the last Head, called the Beast, would not concern the then Roman Empire, because it was not to come till after the end of that present Reigning Age.

And their willingness to take this safe way, might make them easie to be satisfied with such small grounds as these for it, viz. 1. That the Beast in the Revelations is signified, Chap. 13. 2. to contain all the Four Beasts of the 7th of Daniel, in his own Body; though that be the same with what is said of the Fourth Beast alone, that is, that he had devoured the other three. But this Apprehension might easily induce them, first to fancy the Beast to be at least all those Four Monarchies that are mentioned in Da∣niel; And 2. when that was done, they might as easily thereupon be brought to extend the notion of it to contain the whole World in it, from the representation of the Seven Heads upon it, the num∣ber seven being then generally accounted in the Learning of the Jews and Christians, to be a signification of the whole sum of the kind of things, with which it was joined; And then it was ob∣vious to fancy the Seven Heads to be some seven parts of time, that should measure out that blasphemous, or ungodly time of the World, from the first beginning of it, to the last end of it. And yet all the ground for this was nothing but that mention of the parts of the Four Beasts in the 7th of Daniel, in the make of the Body of the Beast in the 13th Chapter of the Revelations, which the Fourth Beast in Daniel is said to have devoured.

The Fathers that came after the time of Constantine, and that saw the Roman Empire turned Christian, could not, it seems, ever bring it into their minds to think, That God would ever suffer the Roman Empire to relapse again into Infidelity, or to appear in the dreadful Characters of the Tyranny of the Beast a∣gainst the Church; And yet they must stand to that, if they al∣lowed

Babylon to be Rome, or the future times of the Beast to be∣long to the Roman Empire. They therefore interpret Babylon to be the General City of all Wicked Men all the World over, and the Beast to be the World of Wicked Men; and the Seven Heads to be either all the Tyrannical Powers of the World that had, or should persecute the Church of God, or all the Wicked Em∣perors only of that Time, Heathen, or Arrian.

That which might the more easily dispose them to this, was the Clamours of the Arrians and Donatists against the then Ortho∣dox Party, that they were the People of that Babylon, that is so dreadfully set out in the Revelations. For it was very obvious for any, that had zeal enough, to make the Change of Religi∣on to be the Change of one of the Heads of the Beast; and so to account the Sixth Head to be the Heathen Emperors only, the Seventh King to be the short continuance of Imperial, and professed Arrianism, under Constantius, Valens, &c. as the time of the Seventh King is described; And the Eighth King, called The Beast, to be the return of that which these called Idolatry and Blasphemy (but others Orthodoxy) under the rest of the Emperors that succeeded, and that were in the time of this Charge in power.

If we consider, That by some of the best Learned, and Cau∣tious Interpreters of this present Age, the change of Religion in the Imperial Head, is made to be the end of the Reign of that Head, it will appear very reasonable to judge, That these Clamours of their Adversaries might be thought to have some ground for them, if they should allow The Beast, and Heads, to be Roman Powers only: And this Consideration might very well make them conclude, that Babylon could not be Rome, nor the Heads of the Beast to be so many Successions of Roman Govern∣ment, at least if they thought it to be undoubted, That the then called Orthodox Party could not possibly be concerned in the Characters of the Beast. For,

That the Orthodox were then charged by their Adversaries with the Application of Babylon, and the Beast, to them, is evi∣dent. That which is the clearest Instance of this nature, is that which Bede, in his Preface to his Comment upon the Reve∣lations, says of Tyconius, an Eminent Donatist, and whom he commends for his Interpretation—He there says, That Ty∣conius, who had suffered in the Cause of the Donatists with the

rest of his Brethren, That he did apply all the Persecutions in the Revelations to the Actions of the then present Church of Rome, against those of his Party: And Primasius, another of his Followers, does also in his Comment upon this Book, affirm much the same of him in his Preface. So also does the Imper∣fect Work upon St. Matthew (wrongly attributed to Chrysostome) charge the Governing party of the Roman Church about the same time, with much the same accusations in several places of it; and Bellarmin informs us, Lib. 3. de Pontif. c. 11. That the Orthodox Africans were called Romanists by the Arrians, as a name of reproach.

Whatever was the true Reason of this new Interpretation of the name of Babylon, it is certain, that it was against the opinion of all the Fathers before, as the most Learned of the Roman In∣terpreters do often acquaint us; and as may be seen from Ire∣naeus in particular, Lib. 5. Contra Haeres. And from Tertullian in Apolog. Victorinus, &c. And there could be no greater Reason to move them to it, than the clamours of that discontented Party.

But after the inundation of the Barbarous Nations all over the Roman Empire, and the settlement of their several King∣doms within the Bounds of it, Andreas Caesariensis, and Arethas, as if they had now plainly seen the division of that Empire amongst the Ten Kings, represented by the Ten Horns of the Beast, seem to be not so well satisfied about the Mystical way of Interpretation, which they had received from those before them. But yet for fear of fixing the Characters of Babylon upon the then present times of the Roman Church, they are very cau∣tious of determining any way: They show how many mean∣ings Babylon may have in it; it may either be the whole World of the Wicked in general, or Babylon in Persia, or Old Rome, or New Rome; and the Seven Heads of the Beast may be either all the wicked Emperours, or Seven Ages of the World, &c. And yet when they come to bethink themselves again, Babylon must some∣times be Rome with them, according to the Ancient Fathers; and yet that it cannot be Old Rome, because that had lost all Ma∣jesty of Empire, (And then what Rome can it be else?) And that Antichrist, when he comes, must be a Monarch of Rome. See Andreas Caesariensis on the 13th and 17th Chapters of the Revelations.

All which shows, That the only thing that can be depended upon, as the Authoritative sense of the Ancients, is their Gene∣neral Agreement about the nature of the 4th Beast in Daniel, and about the relation of the Beast in the Revelations to it; And the immediate consequences of that unanimous consent.

If now it should be thought to be a great prejudice against the clearness and easiness of the Protestant Applications of the Apocalypse to the Church of Rome; That that Interpretation was never heard of for many Ages together, after the time that the beginning of the Apostacy of the Roman Church is dated from by Protestants: Baronius's Testimony concerning it, is a suf∣ficient Answer to that, who (as Dr. Barnard observes) does acknowledg, That there was not an Age in which some Learned Man or other did not appear in this charge of Antichristianism upon the Church of Rome. And we have already seen the Charge of the Donatists and Arrians; and if that should be esteemed to be nothing but the unreasonable clamours of Hereticks, Pope Gre∣gory's complaint of the same nature, against that Antichristian Supremacy of the Bishop of Constantinople, which came after∣wards to be the Title of the Bishop of Rome, is unexception∣able.

But presently after that Age, when Baronius himself says, That the Abomination of Desolation seemed to have been brought into the Church, Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans, in his Speech to the Synod of Rheims, appeals to the whole Synod, whether the behaviour of the Bishops of Rome did not in their opinion fully answer the Character of Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God?—And thereupon applies the 2 Thess. 2. 4, 6, 7. to the Falling in pieces of the Roman Empire, and the Elevation of the Papa∣cy upon the ruines of it.

But after that Pope Gregory the 7th, called Hildebrand, had a while shown himself, there were frequent clamours of this na∣ture. Aventinus, an Historian of that Church, says, That the Greatest part of Good, Ingenuous, Faithful, and Clear-spirited Wri∣ters did hold, That THEN begun the Empire of Antichrist. And accordingly do we find the whole Clergy of the Diocess of Liege, in their Answer to Pope Paschal's Letter, who had been Hildebrand's Scholar, applying the Rage of the Devil in the Apocalypse, against the true Church, to the Popes Actions;

And the Emperour Henry (who was with them) in his Letters to the Christian Princes, does also in express words apply the Characters of Antichrist in the Thess. 1 Ep. 2. to Paschal. The Bishop of Florence also at the same time did publickly Preach, that Antichrist was then born, which made Pope Paschal go in per∣son to Florence, and call a Council there to admonish him to desist.

Their own St. Bernard tells us first, That he had heard Nor∣bart, of great repute for Holiness, affirm with a protestation, That he did most certainly know that Antichrist should be re∣vealed in that Generation. And Bernard himself does also call the Pope Antichrist; and says, That the Beast of the Apoca∣lypse, to whom was given a Mouth speaking Blasphemies, and to make War against the Saints, does sit in the Chair of St. Peter.

But Everhard, Bishop of Saltzburg, in the time of Gregory the 9th, at the Assembly at Ratisbonne, doth the most particularly prove the Time of the Beast, as the 8th King of the Romans, to have been come ever since the time of Hildebrand at least, from the end of the Imperial Power that was the Sixth Head, and the division of the Empire amongst the Ten Kings. Aventin. Lib. 7. 545.

This was the judgment of such as were of the Roman Com∣munion: But ever since the first great appearance of the Albi∣genses, which was before the year 1170. there has been a con∣tinuation of this Accusation against the Roman Church, by whole Bodies of Churches, divided from that Communion.

Those that have the curiosity to see a more particular account of the Tradition of the Charge of Antichrist upon the Roman Church, from the best Learned of its own Members, may con∣sult Du Plessis Mornay, in his Mystery of Iniquity; and Dr. Bernard in his Fourth Discourse, from page 119. where there is an ac∣count more particularly of the Learned Men of this Opinion in the Church of England, both in the times of its Papal state, and since the Reformation.

FINIS.

Notes

• Prophetica pars libri Danie∣lis, sive posteriorasex capita, qua∣tuor illius Visiones continent, qui∣bus res quidem una eademque sed diversis modis indicatur.—Primam, secundam & quartam Visionem (i. e. cap. 7, & 8, & 11, & 12.) de Antiochi Epi∣phanis temporibus intelligunt fe∣rè omnes, qui post Josephum eâ de re scripserunt.
• Judgments of God upon the Roman Church.
• Comment in Dan. Pag. 42. Col. 1.
• Lib. 3. De Pontif. Cap. 5.
• Dan. 2. 44. & 7. 2.
• Lib. 3. cap. 3.
• N. B.
• CONSENT of the Anci∣ents.
• Lib. 5. cont. Haeres. cap. ult.
• N B.
• Dan. 7. 25.
• •••• c. 19. Apoc.
• Grotius. Dr. Hammond.
• Consequences.
• V. 20. V. 3.
• V. 21, 22.
• V. 23.
• V. 8, 12, 15.
• V. 44.
• See the Refe∣rences to the 1st Chap. Book 1.
• Rev. 17. 10, 11.
• Chap. 3.
• See 4th Agree∣ment in this Chap.
• CHAP. 3.
• By Conseq. 4. Chap. 3.
• 3d Agree∣ment in this Chap.
• 4th Agree∣ment, Chap. 3.
• Chap. 3.
• Agreements.
• Prop. 6.
• 4th Agree∣ment, Chap. 3. 3d Agree∣ment, this Chap.
• See Corol. 1. Prop. 23. Rule 2.
• In Praefat. ad Apocal.
• In 2. Ep. Thess.
• Mr. Mede, Bp. Usher, &c.
• * Homilies of the Church of England, p. 69, and p. 316.
• 1. Dan. 2. 40. and 7. 7, 23.
• Mr. Mede. Dr. More.
• Divers Dis∣courses, p. 119.
• Lib. 4. Epist. 38.
• Lib. 6. Ep. 28.
• An. 900. Art. 1, 2, 3.
• Synod. Rheim. Cap. 25, 26, 27, 28. A. D. 991. Mornay My∣ster. Iniquity. p. 213.
• Lib. 5.
• 2. Vol. Concil. p. 809. Edit. Colon.
• Platina in Pa∣schal. 2.
• About the Year 1125. Epist. 56.
• In Cantic. Serm. 33. Epist. 125.
• About A. D. 1230.