Such being the subject of it, who can doubt but that a true account of the reafoning in the latter part of the first chapter is here given? and, confequently, that the Apostle's purpose is not to speak of indefinite Prophecies already fulfilled IN, or UNDER, the OLD TESTAMENT, but of fome precife Prophecy to be fulfilled under the NEW; in order as the feveral parts of it (extending through a course of many Ages) should come into existence.

TO THIS the Church of Chrift is bid ro TAKE HEED, as to a more fure word of Prophecy. But had the defcription ended here, it would have been much too vague to enjoin our attention in fo earnest and particular a manner. The Apostle, therefore, goes on to give it this characteristic Mark

that it was A LIGHT SHINING IN A DARK PLACE. A Prophecy, of which the principal parts were, at that time, furrounded and partly involved in obfcurity and darknefs; but yet, emitting fo many scattered Rays, as to make a careful obferver inclined to think fome great scene was just beginning to open, which would amply reward our

atten

attention to this light shining in a dark place, by the change of its condition, firft into a and then, into ftill clearer day

dawn;

Spring.

The Apostle having thus prepared our way to this SURER WORD, or fuperior excellence of PROPHECY, proceeds to acquaint us with the very IDENTICAL PROPHECY he had in his eye; which will now appear to be no other than the predictions of St. Paul and St. John concerning ANTICHRIST, or the future fortunes of the Church, under the ufurpation of the MAN OF SIN; a prediction elegantly called, by way of eminence, THE WORD OF PROPHEcy. For this Man of Sin began to work before the writing of this farewel Epistle. So St. Paul affures us-THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY (fays he) DOTH ALREADY WORK *. St. Peter, therefore, towards the conclufion of his Epiftle, recurring again, as his fubject required, to God's long-fuffering, in the delay of his fecond coming to judge the world, adds, even as our beloved PAUL alfo, according to the WISDOM given

unto him, bath written unto you: as also in all his Epiftles, SPEAKING IN THEM OF

THESE THINGS IN WHICH ARE SOME

THINGS HARD TO BE UNDERSTOOD, which they that are unlearned and unftable wreft, as they do alfo the other Scriptures, unto their own deftruction *. Now what are these OBSCURE PARTS in St. Paul's Epiftles, here characterised, but the Prophecies in St. John's Book of the REVELATIONS concerning ANTICHRIST †, abridged by St. Paul in his Epiftles, and referred to by St. Peter ‡...

* Chap. iii. 15, 16.

+ See Sir Ifaac Newton's Obfervations upon the Apocalypfe of St. John, chap. i.

See the remainder of this argument in Difcourfe On the Rife of Antichrift.

R. W.

NOTES

NOTES ON BOOK IX.

P. 63. [A].

ON

to

N this Point it will be fufficient to refer the reader to thofe two excellent Writers, Dr. Samuel Clarke and Mr. W. Baxter, for a full Demonftration of the immateriality of that Substance, in which the faculties of sense and reflexion refide. [See Clarke's Tracts against Dodwell and Collins, and Baxter on the Nature of the Soul.] Thefe Writers have gone much further than Locke and others on the fame Subject; who contented themselves with fhewing the poffibility, nay, great probability, that the thinking fubftance in us is immaterial. [See Locke's Second Reply to the Bishop of Worcester, p. 600. of his Works.] But Clarke and Baxter have clearly proved, from the difcovered qualities of a thinking Being, that the Soul cannot poffibly be material, whatever undiscovered qualities it may be poffeffed U 3

of.

of. And this conclufion was made (in my opinion) neither rafhly nor at random. For, to unfettle our affurance in the truth of their Opi-. nion, their Adverfaries muft fhew that such undifcovered qualities are contrary to the qualities difcovered; yet contrary qualities can never fubfift together in the fame fubftance, without one deftroying the other. Hence, we understand the futility of Mf. Locke's fuperinduction of the faculty of thinking to a fyftem of Matter; conceived, by that excellent Writer, in the modeft fear of circumfcribing Omnipotence; but Omnipotence is not circumfcribed by denying its power of making qualities, deftructive of one another, to refide in the fame fubftance (for a power which produces nothing is no exercife of power); but by denying his power to change, together with confiftent qualities, the nature of the substance in which thofe qualities refide. This power (fuppofing Mr. Locke contended for no more) will be readily granted; but his argument will gain nothing by it. On the contrary, by changing materiality into imma teriality, it ends the difpute with the Bishop; but to Mr. Locke's disadvantage, by proving, that the Soul, or thinking Substance in us, is immaterial.