dom in the new heavens and the new earth. The vision of the four beasts or wild beasts ends in like manner, as does that of Zechariah, with an immediate reference or sudden transition to the end of the world, or the church and kingdom of Christ, which must in this case be deemed synchronous and synonymous objects and events. And the vision of the four horses with them that sat upon them, has a like result and termination; the "stars fell from heaven, the heavens departed as a scroll, and they hid themselves in the dens and rocks of the mountains, saying to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of his wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?" From all which it follows that, allowing for the difference of time and of external circumstances, the prophecies of the New Testament in many respects coincide and correspond with those of the Old. That the prophecies of the beloved John agree with those of Daniel particularly, who was also greatly beloved, and so much resembled him; not only in the process and manner of their being revealed, but also in their general object and import: and sketched out at one view what was to be more distinctly developed and farther elucidated in subsequent visions, and by ampler and brighter discoveries.

SECTION VII.

THE WILD BEAST.

HAVING determined the prophetic marks and scriptural character of the Antichrist*, and having evinced a close and exact correspondence, and an entire conformity therewith in modern history and in real life, and the adequate and irrefragable completion and confirmation of the prophecies in the person and pretensions of Mahomet, let us now proceed from considering his boasted mission from heaven, and his assumed spiritual supremacy, to investigate his widely-extended temporal domination, and his vast and tyrannical worldly empire. The very different prophetic names and characters of the Antichrist and the Beast, or rather the wild beast, necessarily require this distinction, and indeed almost unavoidably force us to adopt these different views and considerations. The name of the Antichrist more obviously indicating his religious character, and betokening the spiritual functions and divine authority he claimed, whilst that of the wild beast denotes his political character, and symbolizes that idolatrous and barbarous kingdom, or empire,

ὁ Αντιχριστος.

he founded, and has so long maintained over an important part of the globe, and over no inconsiderable proportion of mankind. He had been frequently foretold and fore-signified by the spirit of truth and of prophecy, under the two-fold character of an earthly sovereign and of a false prophet, and was therefore expected and dreaded by the ancient church, both Jewish and Christian, in the two-fold capacity of a wilful king, and cruel tyrant, and of a founder of error and high-priest of imposture *. His kingdom or monarchy is therefore justly termed Inpov, which, according to Daniel and all the commentators, signifies, in general, an impious and barbarous empire, opposed to the one true religion, and persecuting the one true church and people of God.

Hippolytus had, at an early period of Christianity, taught the primitive church so to understand the subject, and so to interpret the prophets, and observes, "He calls the Antichrist the Beast, or, the wild Beast +." In this he is followed by Andreas Cæsariensis, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, which is borrowed from more ancient writers, and from purer and better times. Ephraim Syrus adopts the same exposition and the same conclusion, and calls him "the terrible wild beast," and "the dragon." And the Pseudo

* See Dan. xi. 36, 37.

+ θηριον τον Αντίχριστον λέγει. Η θηριον δεινον.

Athanasius only echoed the general voice of antiquity in declaring, "it is manifest that the Beast is the Antichrist *." That such was the decision and the interpretation of antiquity in respect of this momentous subject and character, so frequently noticed and delineated in the Scriptures, and of such general inquiry and consequence in the church and in the world, is and must be at once admitted. But the bitter party zeal, and unhappy love of strife and controversy, which distinguish and mislead most modern expositors, and are so prevalent and pernicious in modern times, have greatly obscured the meaning, and perplexed the design and the use of it. Revealed truth, as such, in itself, and for itself, has been by this means deprived of its support and its defence, and the catholic church has been robbed of her treasures and her strength, her friends have been divided, her cause has been weakened, her influence and her authority have been lessened, her hedges have been broken down, and the wild boar of the forest permitted and even invited to pluck off her grapes.

Bishop Newton rejects here the light and guidance of the ancient masters, and dismisses the wise and good who had gone before him, both of his own and of the primitive church, with coldness and even with disdain. "The

προδηλον ότι το θηριον ὁ Αντιχριστος εστι.

R

fathers had strange notions concerning Antichrist." Nor does his opinion of the early writers of the church of England seem to be less mean and less contemptuous. But strange as were the notions of both classes of writers, and of both periods of the church, they were more agreeable to Scripture and to truth, and more consistent with the testimony of fact, and the events of the world, than his own, or those of such as have been led by him. To interpret prophecy so as to discredit the faith, and to disgrace the profession of our holy religion, is obviously to contravene its acknowledged end and use, and to strengthen the hands of infidels and of Mahometans. Besides, misinterpretation produces not merely ignorance, but what is much worse, error. Few scriptural truths are not merely scientific, and wholly theoretic. Even those of prophecy, however speculative they may appear, are essentially operative in their design, and entirely practical in their tendency and results; and to mistake and to misapply them is, in this case, to pervert them, and to detract from the evidence and the influence of Christian truth, and is a public loss and wrong to the church. And writers of the Anglican church, which recognises the Pope to be the Bishop of Rome, have never even attempted to reconcile the inconsistency of his being the professed disciple and even minister of Christ, and, at the same time, his professed enemy