they infift all along, on this comprehensive and diftinguishing character of extenfive influence and authority, exercifed in promoting corruptions in religion among other nations; as it is in a fpecial manner with a view to that influence, and its effects, that fo much is faid in the predictions concerning the various above-mentioned characters, relating to place, time, nature, extent, and means, of the power fo particularly defcribed, and concerning deceiving, intoxicating, `or making drunk the kings of the earth; their agreeing to give their trength and power to the beaft, and committing fornication with the mother of harlots; things of which (efpecially when taken complexly) no veftige appears in the character of the Pagan emperors; who indeed too oft perfecuted their Chriftian fubjects, but were never remarkable for feducing and intoxicating kings in matters of religion; as it was not the way of thofe kings, to agree to give their ftrength and power to them.

Could it be faid of Pagan Rome, as it is faid Rev. xvii. 5. of myftical Babylon, that the name of mother of the abominations, or idolatries of other kingdoms, was her name, and that that name was written on her forehead? Is it not the most natural meaning of having that name written on the forehead, that the character denoted by it, fhould not only really agree to the object fo named, but that this fhould be an obvious thing, and of public notoriety among thofe to whom that object was truly known? Was there ever fuch a character as that of mother-church of Paganifm afcribed to Rome by others, or claimed by herfelf? Though her civil power was indeed, in the ufual limited fenfe, univerfal or catholic, was there ever any fuch uniformity (Rev. xvii. 13.one mind) in matters of religion, under one pretended head of unity, as to found the denomination of Roman-Catholic Paganifm through the empire? As it is certain there was not, it fol lows,

lows, that the characters of uniformity and unity in corrupt religion, under one pretended fupreme head in fuch matters, which run through the predictions in view, are fufficient proofs, that Paganifm is not the thing meant in them. As the ancient civil union of the empire, under one fecular power, is, in these predictions themselves, declared to be at an end at the time they fpeak of, through the divifion of the empire among ten chief horns or fovereign powers; no other foundation, or principle of unity, could remain, but that now mentioned, to denominate and defcribe them, as is done all along, as the horns of one beaft, and under one common -head.

3. Whereas the true God, and his tabernacle, (whether that be fuppofed to denote Chrift's human nature, or any other truly facred object to which it may be applicable), as alfo faints and angels, called thofe that dwell in heaven, were, comparatively fpeaking, unknown to the Pagan emperors; and yet all of them are faid to be fo injuriously treated by the beaft, as to be blafphemed by him, Rev. xiii. 6.; this fhews, that befides the above more comprehenfive general character of being the fource (the mother) of enormous evils through the empire, there are characters in the particular evils mentioned that appear by no means fo applicable to ancient as to modern Rome. Particular attention has been justly given to one character of this kind, in the account of myftical Babylon's merchandise, chap. xviii. 13.; where, after fpeaking of flaves, exprefs mention is made of fouls of men; which is the concluding article in the long lift of the particulars of that merchandife; what follows relating only to general qualities of things once poffeffed, and loft at her downfall. It is an inftance worth noticing, of the ftrange shifts fometimes used against the most natural interpretations of the predictions in view, that it has been pretended, that the words rendered fouls

of

of men, may, in that paffage, denote flaves, when flaves are the very next article preceding; and the word rendered fouls here, is the word that has ufually that fignification on other occafions. So that the interpretation which the criticism mentioned recommends, lies open to two exceptions: It deviates from the moft ufual natural meaning of words without any manner of reafon; and it makes fuch a deviation in order to an unneceffary repetition of the very thing last named.

4. It is an argument of weight against applying the predictions under confideration to Pagan Rome, that it is not natural to fuppofe fo uncommon admiration, as John defcribes Rev. xvii. 6. to be raifed by a thing fo familiar and well known to him and others, as the Paganifin of that empire. And if it be objected, That it is not the crimes, but the punishment, then future, that raised fuch wonder; it is anfwered, That there is indeed, in y 1. a promife to fhew to John Babylon's judgement; which promise is afterwards fulfilled, but not till towards the clofe of the chapter. In the parts of the defcription preceding his admiration, where we must feek for the object and grounds of it, it is not her punishment that is defcribed, but her grandeur and crimes, and particularly perfecution, in the words immediately before thofe that exprefs his wonder; which wondering is reprefented to be fo confiderable, that the very first thing faid to him by the interpreting angel, is, Wherefore didft thou marvel? Can it be fuppofed, that it would appear matter of marvelling to the Apostle, with great admiration, as himself calls it, to find it revealed, that the Hea then empire perfecuted the Chriftian church, efpecially if his prophecy was pofterior to Nero's perfe cution?

5. This naturally leads to another more general argument against applying these predictions to the enormities of Paganifm; which were things of the

moft

moft public notoriety already, being partly past, partly prefent; whereas it is the known nature and fcope of prophecy in general, and exprefsly declared to be fo, as to the revelation made to John, to defcribe things to come, and that would not be known, if not revealed.

It is no juft exception against this argument, that it is, and must be, owned on all hands, that fome things in John's prédictions, concerning the Roman empire, relate to things then paft or prefent; as when the great city treated of, is defcribed from its fituation on feven hills, its prefent univerfal dominion, and former diverfity of governments. For though all this is true, it is no lefs fo, that all fuch hiftorical or geographical defcriptions, are not properly parts of the predictions, but fubfervient parts of the prophetic difcourfes containing them, needful to point out the empire, or parts of the world, that are to be the theatre of the future events foretold.

The interpretations that apply the predictions about the beaft and Babylon to Paganifm, fcarce leave any thing that is prophetic in them, but what relates either to Babylon's duration or downfall; and it fo happens, that the clearest characters given of both these things, furnifh fome of the strongest arguments againft fuch mifinterpretations.

Mean time fome obvious properties of thefe predictions, or prophetic difcourfes, afford weighty arguments against fuppofing them to have fo very little in them properly and ftrictly prophetical, (i. e. relative to future events), as fuch misinterpretations must infer. Some view of the Pagan empire's unfuccefsful conflict against that of the Redeemer was obviously a proper introduction to predictions of that enemy's overthrow; and accordingly fome view of that conflict is, in chap. xii. prefixed to great revolutions that enfued. But when it is confidered how large, how particular, how circumftantial, the defcriptions are, that relate to the beaft and Ba

bylon,

bylon; what pains is taken to defcribe the beast's feat, his affiftants, his power, the means, the extent, and abuse of it, as above confidered; to mix vifion and interpretations, and to reprefent the fame feries of events in various lights in parallel defcrip tions; and when it is withal confidered, that this fubject is more infifted on, indeed much more, than any other; is it at all credible, that the fcope of all this is little elfe, than to tell the church, and the world, what was fo notour already, that Paganismi would greatly oppofe Chriftianity? Though the former arguments, drawn from the particular diftinguishing characters of the fubject of the predictions, are fufficiently decifive; yet this more general proof, from the general nature and fcope of prophecy, has its particular ule; because it is so easy and obvious, as well as convincing.

VII. As to the fifth character, the duration and period of this feducing power, it is exprefsly predicted, that the beaft fhould continue forty-two months, chap. xiii. 5. There are no lefs than four parallel paffages, affigning precifely the fame durations, partly in the fame, partly in equivalent expreffions, referring to mournful events; which, in the nature of things, have an obvious connection with his continuance, and muft end with it. The holy city, which fo naturally denotes the true church, is faid to be trodden under foot forty-two months, chap. xii. 2.; and in the very next verse, God's witneffes for the truth (who must confequently be mourners for fo extenfive oppofition to it) are faid to prophefy in fackcloth 1260 days; which, in round numbers, amounts to the forty-two months in the other peffages mentioned. In chap. xii. there are two verfes treating of the fame fubject; a woman clothed with the fun, a character applicable to no other fociety on earth but the true church; and treating alfo of the fame event, her refiding in the wildernefs, an emblem of obvious affinity to the