import of prophefying in fackcloth: And whereas . the firft of thefe verfes, y 6. expreffes the continuance of that event by the above-mentioned number of days, namely, 1260; the other verfe, y 14. evidently treating of the continuance of the fame precife event, expreffes it by the fame obfcurer fort of terms, formerly explained in Daniel, time, times, and half a time; thefe things furnifh a decifive proof, that that more obfcure expreffion denotes three and an half prophetic years, which coincides with 1260 days, or forty-two months; for unlefs this were fuppofed, y 6. & 14. fhould give inconfiftent and contradictory accounts of the continuance of the fame event. Thus, whereas the expreffion in y 14. no doubt has more obfcurity in it taken by itfelf, its coincidence with y 6. removes that obfcurity.

To avoid repetitions, it is proper here to refer to the arguments adduced formerly in the remarks on Daniel, to fhew, that fuch calculations must not be understood of natural, but prophetic days or years; without which explication, the oppofition to the Meffiah's kingdom, which, in fo many large predictions, taking in fo vaft a compafs of time, is reprefented all along as of fo diftinguished and extraordinary importance, would turn out to be one of the leaft confiderable, in refpect of its duration, of any that make a figure in hiftory.

It is not needful to enlarge, in inforcing this argument against thofe of the Romish church that apply the predictions to the old Heathen empire; because whether the calculations be meant of natural or prophetic days or years, neither of these. ways will correfpond with the duration of that empire after the time of the prediction, either as to its Heathenifm, or its univerfal civil power; the one extending to about two, and the other to between three and four centuries after John; durations to which one thousand two hundred and fixty days, or

Chap. IV. forty-two months, can by no imaginable explication be applied.

The chief ufe, then, of fuch arguments, is against thofe who apply the predictions to fome Antichrift, who, they say, will appear, and continue about three and an half natural years near the end of the world: and after what is faid in the remarks juft now referred to on Daniel, it feems unneceffary to infift longer in refuting fo ftrange a fuppofition, which feems to merit rather lefs notice than the other misinterpretation of the fame predictions, which applies them to the ancient empire.

To the refutations of that opinion, drawn from the characters of the duration of the beaft and of Babylon, it is proper to annex otlrers from the period of that duration; it being of importance to obferve, how far the characters of Babylon's fall, as well as of her duration, are from being applicable, either to the fall of Rome's ancient Paganifm, or of her ancient extensive civil power.

That they are not applicable to the downfall of Paganifin, is evident from the prophetic account of the inftruments of Babylon's fall; which fhews, they were to be the fame ten horns that formerly had been the inftruments of her rife and continuance; and alfo from the account of the beaft's fucceffors in Babylon when fallen, Rev. xviii. 2.; it being uncontefted, that the downfall of Paganifm was not owing to fuch inftruments, but, under God, to the converfion of the fovereign powers; and that that which may be called the converfion of Rome, and the downfall of its Paganifm, inftead of filling it with fuch inhabitants as the beaft's fucceffors are defcribed to be in the paffage cited, was the happiest deliverance it had ever met with from fuch things.

That the characters of Babylon's fall are not ap-. plicable to the fall of Rome's civil power, is evident, partly, from the account juft now mentioned of the inftruments and confequences of that fall: for how

can

can it be faid, that the inftruments of that downfall of civil power were the fame ten horns that were the inftruments of its rife and continuance? or how can it be faid, that that downfall of Babylon, which is defcribed with fo uncommon magnificence of ftyle through fo large a part of the prophecies in view, as the 18th and 19th chapters of Revelation, befides other parts of the fame book, can be underftood of any bygone difafters of that great city? feeing, though, like fome other cities, it has been facked, taken, and retaken, oftener than once, fuch things have been fo far from bringing her to total and final ruin, that fhe ftill makes a figure among the confiderable cities of the west.

How can the call to God's people, to come out of Babylon because of her approaching fall, be applied by any Chriftians to the fall of Paganifm? feeing that was rather a motive to them to croud into that city.

How can the adherents of the Romish church apply that call to the times of the fall of Rome's civil power? fince that fall was the Papal power's ad

vancement.

When perfons of that communion, or any patrons of their caufe, are zealous for making the myftical Babylon Pagan Rome, and the beaft the Pagan emperor, they feem not to compare carefully thefe two things. 1. Who were the emperors fucceffors in Rome after the fall, firft of her Paganism, and then of her civil empire, according to uncontefted history; and, 2. What are the characters of the fucceffors of Rome's former rulers and inhabitants after the fall of Babylon, according to the prophecy, Rev. xviii. 2.

CHA P. v.

The predictions confidered according to the order of time in which they were delivered.

SECT. I. Of predictions in the books of Mofes and Fob.

I.

IN

N treating of the prophecies in the books of Mofes and Job, it is of particular use, to confider the chief evidences of the Chriftian interpretation of the first promise of grace to mankind, included in the threatening against the tempter that feduced them, Gen. iii. 14.; which interpretation confifts chicfly of the following branches: 1. That by the ferpent, against which the threatening in view is denounced, we are to understand, not merely the brute ferpent, but the evil fpirit that actuated that brute; 2. That by bruifing his head is meant, defeating his defign of ruining mankind; 3. That by the feed of the woman, who was to bruife the ferpent's head, is meant one particular perfon, who would be the faviour and deliverer of mankind from the confequences of the ferpent's malice, and to whom that fingular title, The feed of the woman, would be fingularly applicable, on account of his miraculous conception; and, 4. That by his heel's being bruifed by the ferpent is meant his fufferings from wicked men.

1. The first branch of this interpretation is founded on the preceding history of the ferpent's temptation, which thews, that the brute ferpent was only a paffive inftrument, and that the real tempter was an evil spirit, or intelligent, wicked, invifible agent, an enemy of God and mankind; feeing, as his fpeech and reafoning proves intelligence, and his blafphe

mous

mous temptation proves enmity against God and man; so his acting in the form of a ferpent, no other form appearing, proves him to have been an incorporeal or invisible agent.

Thefe proofs of the character of the tempter are as demonstrative as any proof in other cafes of the properties of a caufe inferred from the properties of its effects. Nor is it any juft objection, that the tempter is called by the name of the ferpent; it being fuitable to the ftyle of fcripture and other writings, that invifible agents fhould be denominated from the vifible forms which they affume; as when angels are fometimes in fcripture called men, because of their appearing in human likenefs; fee alfo Gen. xviii. And if the words in Gen. iii. 13. relate to the brute ferpent, this does not hinder their being really a part of the threatening directed against the tempter who actuated that brute; importing, that on account of the atrocioufnefs of his crime, lafting monuments of it, and of the divine difpleasure against it, fhould cleave to that creature in whofe form he acted; which creature itfelf being incapable either of deferving or understanding any threatening, it is unreafonable to fuppofe any threatening to be directed against it, especially by a being of infinite wifdom; fo that the interpretation that would fix fuch a meaning on the divine threatening, contradicts the rules of interpretation that oblige us to understand words in the meaning which is moft fuitable to the character of the fpeaker, and to reject that meaning of any words which implies abfurdity, when they may admit another meaning that is not liable to fuch imputation.

If it be objected, That it is a begging of the queftion to fuppofe, that God is the fpeaker or author of the threatening in view, or that the history that contains it has any higher author than Mofes; it is fufficient to anfwer, That it is God that Mofes affirms to be the author of the threatening; and that

Mofes's