CHAPTER II.
THE MAN OF SIN, OR ANTICHRIST.
A GREAT FOURFOLD PROPHECY OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE (#DAN 7:7-27, #REV
13:1-9, #REV 17 #2THESS 2).- THE ROMAN POWER.-ITS LAST FORM AS PREDICTED
HERE.— INDIVIDUAL AND DYNASTIC USE OF THE WORD "KING."-
AN APOSTATE, BLASPHEMOUS, AND PERSECUTING POWER,- EXACTLY ANSWERING TO
THE ONE HERE PREDICTED, HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR MORE THAN TWELVE CENTURIES,
IN THE SUCCESSION OF THE POPES OF ROME-ORIGIN OF THIS POWER.-ITS MORAL
CHARACTER.- ITS SELF-EXALTING UTTERANCES.-ITS SELF- EXALTING ACTS. -ITS
SUBTLETIES; —-FALSE DOCTRINES, AND LYING WONDERS.-ITS IDOLATRIES.
-ITS DOMINION.-ITS PERSECUTION OF THE SAINTS.-ITS DURATION.-ITS DOOM.
INTIMATELY associated with the Apocalyptic prophecy of Babylon the Great,
which foretold, as we have seen, the existence, character, career, and
doom, of the apostate church of Rome, is another prophecy so closely related
to it, that the one cannot fairly he considered apart from the other.
The woman which symbolises the corrupt church, is seen seated on a "scarlet-coloured
beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns."
As the angelic interpretation connects the woman with ROME, by the words
: "the woman which thou sawest is that great city which ruleth over
the kings of the earth," so it also connects this "beast"
with ROME; for, interpreting its seven heads as seven successive forms
of government, the angel says of them, "five are fallen, and ONE
IS." Under one of its seven forms, then, the power here intended
was the ruling power in the days when the Apocalypse was granted. That
power was, as we know, the Roman Empire; it was by the tyrant Domitian
that the Apostle John was exiled to Patmos, and it was under the Pagan
persecutions of the Roman Emperors, that the saints of that age were suffering
martyrdom.
The past as well as the future history of this power, is sketched by the
angel. Five of its forms of government had, at that time, already passed
away. The sixth was then in existence, a seventh was to follow and last
a short time, and then should come the eighth and last; and it was on
the beast as governed by this eighth and last head, that the woman was
seen seated. Speaking of the "heads," or forms of government,
the angel says, "Five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not
yet come, and when he cometh he must continue a short space; and the beast
which thou sawest . he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into
perdition."
This scarlet-coloured beast is then a symbol of the final form of the
Roman power, the last phase of that power whose entire course is represented
by the fourth great beast of Daniel. (Dan. vii.) A careful perusal of
these prophecies, leaves no room to doubt, that the same power is symbolised
a third time in the "beast from the abyss," described in the
thirteenth chapter of Revelation. These scriptures present a threefold
prophetic history, of one and the same power; and that power, beyond all
question, is the great, the terrible, the exceeding strong, ROMAN-Empire,
the fourth universal monarchy from that of Babylon, the one which, both
in Daniel s vision of the four beasts, and in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision
of the image, is represented as continuing, till the establishment of
the everlasting kingdom of the God of heaven.
In common with the three preceding empires this power is represented as
a beast, that is as degraded, ignorant, and ferocious. Daniel, in the
days of Belshazzar, long before the first Advent, saw it as a one-headed
beast, John in the days of Domitian, when it had already been more than
eight centuries in existence, saw it as a seven-headed beast, fuller detail
being naturally revealed to the later seer.
As a matter of fact, the great Roman power, did actually exist under seven
distinct and constantly recognised forms of government, enumerated by
Livy, Tacitus, and historians in general, as such. Rome was ruled successively
by kings, consuls, dictators, decemvirs, military tribunes, military emperors,
and despotic emperors; the form of government being entirely dissimilar
under these two last, though the name Emperor was common to both.
This empire is represented as existing first in an undivided state, and
secondly in a divided tenfold state. As a matter of history, it is notorious
that the Roman power has done this. From its rise to the fourth century
it was one and undivided; since its decline and fall as an empire, it
has been broken up into many independent sovereignties, held together
by a common submission to the Popes of Rome. The number of distinct kingdoms
into which the Roman Empire in Europe has been divided, has always been
about ten, at times exactly ten, sinking at other times to eight or nine,
and rising occasionally to twelve or thirteen, but averaging on the whole
ten. *
(* "It seems unnecessary," says Wordsworth, present Bishop of
Lincoln, "to specify ten particular kingdoms into which the Roman
Empire was divided; or even to demonstrate that it was divided into precisely
ten kingdoms. The most ancient passage of Scripture in which the prophecy
of the future division of the Roman Empire is found, is the vision of
the image (#Dan 2:42), where these kingdoms are represented by the toes
of the image. Being toes they must he ten. Hence, when this dismemberment
is described in other successive prophecies this denary number is retained:
and thus the number ten connects all these prophecies together, and serves
to show that they all point to the same object." Wordsworth on the
Apocalypse, p. 524.)
This is generally admitted, and indeed cannot be denied; the fact lies
on the surface of the history of Europe since the break-up of the Roman
Empire, and serves as an important clue to the true scope and fulfilment
of these predictions.
The point of supreme importance, in connection with this thrice-symbolised
Roman Empire, is (to judge from the great prominence given to it by the
inspiring Spirit), its connection in its second stage with a peculiar
and diabolical power of evil; the rise, character, and actings of which,
are delineated with greater fulness, than are those of the Empire itself.
It is evident that the "little horn" of Dan. vii., and the "eighth
head" of the beast in Rev. xiii. and xvii. represent some important
and mysterious power of evil; distinct from, and yet connected with, the
Roman Empire, in its second or divided stage. How important this power
is in the Divine estimation, may be gathered from the fact, that more
than ten times as much space devoted to a description of it; than is occupied
by the whole course and continuance, of either of the first three universal
monarchies. These are each dismissed in a single verse; the little horn
occupies ten or eleven, as if ten times more importance were attached
to this strange power destined to arise in the second stage of the Roman
dominion, than to any one of the vast and mighty empires of antiquity.
Moreover, it is evidently the character and actings of this horn, or head,
or power, that determine the doom of the beast.
Before we inquire what this power is, we must associate a fourth prophecy
with these three, and consider very briefly St. Paul s prediction of the
man of sin.
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto Him, that ye be not soon shaken in
mind, or he troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor hy letter as
from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you
by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come A FALLING
AWAY first, and that MAN OF SIN he revealed, the SON OF PERDITION; who
opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing him.
self that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I
told you these things? And now YE KNOW what withholdeth that he might
be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth, already work:
only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And
then shall THAT WICKED be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the
spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and
signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness
in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth,
that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie" (#2Thess 2:1-11).
In this passage, Paul,-in his endeavour to remove from the minds of the
Thessalonians, the erroneous expectation of the immediate advent of Christ,
which they were entertaining, and which they had perhaps derived from
the expression in his previous epistle, "we who are alive and remain,"-reminds
them of something he had before told them, that certain events had to
intervene, that an apostasy had to take place in the church, whose incipient
workings might already be detected. It was to issue in the development
of a terrible power of evil, which he proceeds to describe, but which
he tells them, could not be fully manifested, till a certain hindrance,
(and what that is, he adds, "you know ") should be removed.
The very earliest traditions tell us, that the hindrance here alluded
to was the Roman Empire as then existing, and that Paul having previously
by word of mouth made known that fact to the church, avoided, from prudential
reasons, more explicit reference to it in this written communication.
He did not wish to expose the persecuted Christians to fresh dangers,
by putting into the hand of their enemies, proof of what would by them
have been considered, a seditious creed.
Tradition is often an unsafe guide; but in this case it seems peculiarly
entitled to respect. The point was both an important; and a simple one;
those who received the information from the apostle were not likely to
forget it, and could scarcely err in repeating it; and from no other source
than tradition, could the church of later ages learn, a fact, communicated
by word of mouth only, and purposely omitted from the inspired letter
of the apostle. We may therefore be thankful, that the tradition as to
what this hindrance was, is of a very early date, is explicit, and agrees
with what we learn from other scriptures; as well as that there is no
counter-tradition on the point. From Ireneus, the disciple of Polycarp,
the contemporary of St. John, we first hear, that the hindrance mentioned
by Paul when he was with the Thessalonians, and alluded to in his second
epistle, was THE ROMAN EMPIRE; and from him downwards the fathers are
unanimous in this assertion. Paul says to the early church, "ye know;"
the early church, (though not the identical generation,) tell us what
they knew, and who are we, that we should say they are mistaken? How can
we be in a position to correct their error?
Besides, there is the strongest presumption that they were right, for
how should Ireneus and the fathers invent such an improbable notion? They
were far more likely to imagine the Roman Emperor to be Antichrist, than
to imagine him to be the great obstacle to Antichrist s development! ITS
truth alone can account for the existence of this tradition, at the date
at which we first meet it.
The point is important, because his connection with THE ROMAN EMPIRE,
is one of the links in the chain of evidence, which proves, that the "man
of sin" and "son of perdition" here foretold, is identical
with the power described in the three prophecies we have just considered.
He was to reign at ROME, else why would the then regnant power be a hindrance
to his development? He was to succeed soon after the fall of the Roman
Emperors, "then shall that wicked be revealed ;" he was to emanate
from Satan, "whose coming is after the working of Satan;" he
was to wield an ecclesiastical power, though succeeding purely secular
rulers, "the temple of God," or Christian church, being the
special scene of his ostentation and pride; he was to be an opposer of
Christ and his laws; and he was to be consumed like the "little horn,"
by the brightness of Christ s coming. In all these respects, the power
here foretold by Paul exactly resembles that predicted by Daniel and John,
and as two such powers could not co-exist, it must be the same power.
ITS rise, actings, character, and doom, are here foretold in plain words,
while in the other prophecies, they are veiled in symbolic language.
In seeking the fulfilment of this fourfold prediction, we must therefore
combine the features given in each separate prophecy, and, recognising
the principle of progressive revelation, we must modify the views derived
from the earlier, by the later prophecies, and those derived from the
later by the latest.
The particulars revealed about this great and peculiar power of evil,
or "man of sin," are neither few nor vague; but, like those
given by the spirit of prophecy respecting the Lord Jesus Christ before
his advent,-they are numerous, full, and most definite. They comprise
explicit information as to the time, place, and mode of his origin, and
as to the attendant circumstances; they assign to him various and deeply
significant names; they describe his character and his actings toward
God and toward man; his official position; his pride; his idolatries;
his blasphemies; his lying wonders and false miracles the extent of his
dominion; his coadjutors; his persecutions of the saints of God; his opposition
to the Lamb of God; the duration of his prosperity and power; the causes
of his decay and fall; his end, and his eternal portion. There is added,
besides, a mysterious numerical mark, designed to secure his recognition
by the wise. This is indeed the object for which this prophetic portrait
is given to the church, that she might recognise her great enemy when
he should appear, be sustained in her sufferings under him, and be encouraged
to resist him even to blood. It is not a portrait easily to be mistaken:
the features are too terrible and too peculiar, to belong to more than
one incarnation of evil.
Interpreting, then, by the help of Scripture itself the symbols under
which realities are veiled, and blending in our minds the scattered intimations
of this fourfold prophecy of the man of sin, and son of perdition, we
will endeavour to point out the power, that in every respect answers to
the portrait, sketched by the pen of inspiration. That power we are fully
persuaded, and hope to be able to prove to the satisfaction of every unprejudiced
reader, is, the succession of the Roman Pontiffs, the line of tiara-crowned
monarchs, who for more than twelve centuries governed Papal Europe, who
ranked as temporal sovereigns, and muted under their sway the kingdoms
of western Christendom.
As the Futurist school of interpreters hold a contrary view to this, and
maintain that the fourfold prophecy in question refers to a single individual;
and not to a succession of rulers, we must examine the symbols employed,
and the statements made in these predictions, to see which view has most
Scripture authority.
In Daniel s vision, the power in question is represented as a horn of
the Roman beast-" a little horn." Now a horn in these symbolical
prophecies signifies sometimes an individual king, and sometimes a dynasty
or race of rulers. In the "notable horn" of the he-goat, or
Grecian Empire, universally admitted to have prefigured Alexander the
Great, we have an instance of the use of the symbol in the former sense;
and in the "four horns," which came up in the place of that
notable horn, and represented the dynasties of the Ptolemies, the Seleucids,
etc., we have an instance of its use in the latter sense.
It is an exceedingly important inquiry, in which sense is the symbol used
in the prophecy we are considering. Are the ten horns and their cotemporary
the "little horn" individual rulers, or are they races of rulers?
We turn to the angelic interpretation of the vision for additional light.
"The ten horns are the ten kings which shall arise, and another shall
rise after them." If the word "king" here, necessarily
signifies an individual monarch, the question is answered the ten horns
must be ten individual kings, and their cotemporary, the "little
horn," must in that case be an individual also. If this be so, the
Futurists are right; for since we know the "man of sin" is to
be in existence at the coming of Christ, it follows, that his career is
future; since an individual can live only the ordinary life of mortals.
If we say again, a "king" must signify one man, and not a race
of men, then the whole Protestant system of interpretation is erroneous;
then the innumerable multitude of martyrs, confessors, and commentators,
who have deemed that they recognised Antichrist, and heard his voice,
and felt his oppressions, were deluded, and betrayed into gross perversion
of the word of God; then the Waldenses, and the Wickliffites, .and John
Huss, and Jerome of Prague, and all their fellow-sufferers were deceived
on this most important subject; and then, moreover, the event, which the
church of the 19th century has to expect, is not the speedy coming of
Christ, but, as the Futurists assert, the very same that the Thessalonians
of the first century were directed to look a prior advent and revelation
of Antichrist.
It is therefore a momentous inquiry, which must not be lightly passed
over, Does the word "king," in common and in Scripture usage
necessarily mean an individual? On the answer to this question, depends
in great measure our judgment, as to whether the long-predicted Antichrist
is a past and present power, or whether we are still to look forward to
his reign as a future event.
It is a maxim of the English Constitution that "the king cannot die."
Does that maxim assert the immortality of an individual? or does is not
rather assert the perpetuity of the Royal Office? "The king of England
is a constitutional monarch," is a statement, which as much includes
Queen Victoria as George III., though she is not a king at all, because
it asserts what is characteristic of the whole line of English monarchs.
If we read "the king of Prussia was at war with the emperor of France,"
we do not imagine that the two men were fighting a duel, but perceive
that the word is used in a representative sense, the "king"
including his kingdom, and the emperor representing his empire. In ordinary
language, then, the word "king" may have a personal, an official,
or a representative force; the context must in each case determine its
signification. In treating of brief periods, and trivial events, the word
is generally used in the personal sense; but in treating of long stretches
of history, and great abstract principles, in the official or representative
sense.
As far as ordinary usage can be a guide, the extended sense of the word,
is therefore most likely to be the true one in the passage under consideration,
which treats of the succession of empires, and gives an outline of the
world s history to the end of time.
But we are not left to this presumption; the prophecy itself uses the
expression in the extended official sense, immediately before the sentence
in question. (#Dan 7:17) "These great beasts which are four, are
four kings which shall arise out of the earth." Did this mean four
individuals? Nay! but four great universal empires, each of which endured
for centuries, under a succession of monarchs.
This proves that the ten horns and the little horn may be dynasties and
not individuals; it does not prove that they must. It shows that Scripture
uses the word in both senses, and many confirmatory instances of this
official use of it, might be quoted. (Compare #Jer 25:9-12; #Jer 27:6-7)
The great question is, How is it used in the symbolic prophecies of Daniel?
A little investigation will show that out of six instances in which it
occurs, five require the extended official sense, and in the other, the
two meanings of the word coincide. The probability, therefore, is, that
governments, and not individual men, are intended by the ten horns and
the little horn.
A further argument for the same view is found in the fact that these prophecies
are evidently continuous. There are no gaps, between the parts of the
image seen by Nebuchadnezzar; the ten toes, (which are evidently identical
with these ten horns,) are joined on to the legs of iron. The interpretation
links the history in the same way. Every subsequent stage follows immediately
on the preceding one. There was no interval between the fall of Belshazzar
and the rise of Darius the Mede. "In that night he took the kingdom."
So in each case. How contrary then to all analogy to suppose an interval
of over 1200 years, between the close of the undivided state of the Roman
Empire, and the commencement of the divided state, which is presented
as immediately succeeding! And this, when it is an undeniable and notorious
fact; that a tenfold division did take place immediately after the dissolution
of the old Roman Empire, and has continued more or less definitely from
that day to this!
Prophecy foretells that the Roman Empire, when it ceased to exist as one
kingdom, should begin to exist as ten; history tells us that it did so;
and as we adoringly admire this correspondence, between the prediction
and the fact, Futurist interpreters try to persuade us, that the prophecy
does not predict this fact at all, that the ten horns do not symbolise
the ten kingdoms into which the old Roman Empire was broken up; but that,
leaping over the twelve centuries marked by this fact; to a period still
future, it predicts the rise, of ten individual men, whose brief career
of a few years, is to be terminated by the Epiphany of Christ!
Is not this to make the prophecy of God of none effect through their interpretation?
And further, as we shall hereafter prove, the chronology of these visions,
is as symbolic as their other features, and is expressed on the year-day
scale. The duration assigned to this great power of evil, is therefore
1260 years (time, times, and half a time); and this alone decides the
question. The ten horns, and their cotemporary the little horn, represent
dynasties, like the four horns of the Grecian he-goat and the two horns
of the Medo-Persian ram.
The symbol employed in the Apocalyptic prophecy to prefigure this evil
power equally demands its dynastic character, and forbids the thought
that an individual man is intended. It is represented as an eighth head
of the Roman beast, an eighth form of government, having its seat at Rome.
Now none of the previous "heads" of the Roman world, were individual
rulers; but each consisted of a series of rulers. Seven kings formed the
first head, and lasted 220 years; consuls, tribunes, decemvirs, and dictators,
were the next four heads, and governed Rome in turn for nearly 500 years;
sixty-five emperors followed, and ruled the Roman world for 500 years
more. Now the man of sin, Antichrist, is to be the last, and the most
important "head" of this same Roman beast. If he be a race of
rulers enthroned at Rome, and governing thence the Roman world for more
than twelve centuries, it is in harmony with all the rest. But if the
eighth head represent one individual, man, who exercises authority for
only three years and a half, there is an utter violation of all symmetry
and proportion in the symbol. Analogy demands that the last head, be like
all the previous ones, a race or succession of rulers.
The Thessalonian prophecy leads us to the same conclusion. The mystery
of iniquity was already working in the apostle s day; that mystery which
was to result in the development of the man of sin. Now, if he be not
yet come, and if when he comes he is to reign only three and a half years,
we have this extraordinary fact; that it has taken Satan eighteen or nineteen
centuries to produce this single, short-lived enemy of the church. Reductio
ad absurdum.
If, on the other hand, Antichrist rose on the fall of the Roman Empire,
all is reasonable and natural. Satan worked secretly for three or four
centuries, corrupting the church by false doctrine, worldliness, etc.,
and at last, having gradually prepared the world and the church to receive
him, he enthroned the Antichrist at Rome, in a race of rulers, who, combining
temporal and spiritual power, and using both to hinder the spread of the
truth, were to be for more than twelve centuries, his principal agents
upon earth.
It is not denied that the Thessalonian prophecy gives the impression,
on a cursory perusal; that it predicts a single individual. This is exactly
in harmony with the style of prophetic chronology, with that mysterious
year-day system which was selected by God to keep alive the hope and expectation
of the doming of Christ, throughout the whole course of the dispensation.
Had the dynastic character and real period of the son of perdition been
revealed clearly, the return of Christ would to the early Christians,
have been postponed to a hopelessly distant future. But, though the early
church knew (after the publication of second Thessalonians) that the advent
of Antichrist was to precede the advent of Christ, they supposed he would
be an individual, whose period would be brief; and the expectation formed
no hindrance to their watching and waiting for the Lord s return.
Many other arguments in favour of the dynastic character of the power
answering to the "little horn" and "eighth head,"
might be adduced; but these must suffice. The fulfilment is the great
proof. Such a power as is here predicted, has existed, has done the things
this power was to do, has borne the character and undergone the experiences
here described; it rose at the crisis here indicated, lasted the period
here assigned, answered in every point with the most marvellous exactitude
to these prophetic prefigurations, and was recognised by those who suffered
under it, as the power here intended. If a singularly complex lock is
opened by a key equally complex in its structure, who doubts that the
one was made to fit the other?
So copious is the evidence, of the fulfilment in the history of the Popedom
of this remarkable four fold prophecy, that it is almost impossible fairly
to present it in a brief compass. Learned and able writers have filled
volumes without number, with proofs, that the Papacy has accomplished
every clause of these predictions. Every history of the middle ages, every
description of the monastic orders, and of the Jesuits, every narrative
of the Papacy and its proceedings, every bull, and every decretal, issued
by the, sovereign Pontiffs, many a monument, and many a medal, and many
a mournful martyrology, lend their witness to the fact. Space oblige us
to confine ourselves here, to the merest outline of the overwhelming mass
of historic testimony, that might be adduced on the subject. We append
a list of works from which fuller information may be obtained.
I. ORIGIN.
The "little horn," in Daniel, is a horn of the ROMAN beast,
that is a political power, which rules over part of the territory formerly
governed by the Caesars. The eighth head in Revelation is similarly a
head of the ROMAN beast, the same beast that was in power when the Apocalypse
was written, and had been for centuries previously. Two intimations exist
that ROME ITSELF was to be the seat of this ruling power: it is an eighth
head; and the seven previous ones had all ruled at ROME; and Paul says
that the removal of the Imperial power from Rome, was a needful preliminary
to its rise.
As a horn, this power was to be little-" a little horn ;" its
dominions were never to be territorially large, nor its mere political
influence great; and yet it was to be more influential and important than
all the rest. It was to displace three horns, as it grew up among the
ten, but these were apparently to be replaced, for the horns are always
spoken of as "ten." Though only a horn, this power has some
of the attributes of a head, for its "eyes and mouth" impart
to it an incontestable superiority over the rest. In the later vision
of John, the same power is
represented as a head; an "eighth head," representing a former
seventh head, which had received a deadly wound. By both emblems it is
presented, as in some important sense a prolongation of the power of the
old Roman Empire. The immediately preceding head, or form of government,
was to receive a deadly wound, so that the beast should seem to be for
a time destroyed; but under this eighth head it should revive, and become
as strong as ever. The one original Empire was to be broken up; in its
stead a number of smaller kingdoms were to arise; and contemporaneously
with their rise, was to spring up also this mysterious, peculiar, "little
horn," this unique and singularly evil power, territorially small,
but yet so all-influential, that it would take the lead of the rest, become
their head, and so reunite, by a new bond, the recently dissevered and
independent portions of the Western Empire of Rome.
Now to any one familiar with the history of Europe from the division of
the Roman Empire, into Eastern and Western under Valens and Valentinian,
to the time of the Reformation, this prophecy reads like history. So exact,
so singularly descriptive is the figuration, that if it were proposed
as a problem, to present the phenomena attending the rise of the Papacy,
in a single symbol, it would be impossible to discover one more appropriate.
What are the notorious facts of the case, facts attested by historians
of unquestionable accuracy and impartiality, admitted by Roman Catholic
writers, and confirmed by redundant evidence? Briefly these,- After the
reception of Christianity by Constantine, and its establishment as the
religion of the Empire, corruption and worldliness, which had long been
rife in the Church, increased with fearful rapidity. At the close of the
fourth century, the bishopric of Rome was already deeply sunk in these
and other vices, and full of earthly ambition; rival bishops contended
for the episcopal authority with the carnal weapons and fierce passions
of secular rulers, and indulged in luxury and pomp that imitated those
of the Emperors themselves.
When the Empire expired under Augustulus, (the hindrance mentioned in
Thessalonians, being at last removed,) the mystery of iniquity so long
working, began to develop itself. rapidly. The spiritual power and pretensions
of the Papacy were great, though some time still elapsed ere it became
a temporal power. When the dismemberment of the Roman world by the barbarian
invasions began, Italy fell first to the share of Odoacer and the Heruli.
But theirs was never a firm or strong kingdom. The bishops of Rome hated
the authority to which they were obliged to submit, and desired its overthrow.
In about twenty years from its establishment, this was accomplished, and
the first "horn" that had sprung up in Italy and hindered (like
the defunct Empire) the development of the little horn, was rooted up
before it.
A new power, however, succeeded, and for two generations held dominion
over Rome and her bishops. Theodoric, the Ostrogoth, became master of
Italy, and the Popes for sixty years had to own him and his successors
as superiors and rulers. But their own pretensions and claims were rapidly
increasing, and keeping pace with the growing corruption of the Church.
The Gothic yoke became unbearable to them, and, mainly through the influence
of the Popes, Belisarius, the great general of the Eastern Emperor Justinian,
expelled the Ostrogoths from Italy. A second horn had now fallen before
the rising power; the Exarchate of Ravenna was established, and very shortly
a third barbarian power obtained the greater part of Italy. Alboin and
his Lombard followers held sway over its fairest territories, though they
avoided making Rome their capital. Degraded to the rank of a second city,
Rome was left to the care of her bishops, whose authority began to assume
a mixed temporal and spiritual character. They had as yet no temporal
dominions, but they were striving to take their place among earthly sovereigns,
and even already asserting a superiority to them in certain respects.
The ancient metropolis of the world had at this time sunk very low in
political influence and power.
"The lofty tree under whose shade the nations of the earth had reposed,
was deprived of its leaves and branches, and the sapless trunk was left
to wither on the ground. The ministers of command, and the messengers
of victory, no longer met on the Appian Way, and the hostile approach
of the Lombards was often felt, and continually feared. . . . The Campagna
of Rome was speedily reduced to the state of a dreary wilderness, in which
the land is barren, the waters impure, and the air infectious. . . . Like
Thebes, or Babylon, or Carthage, the name of Rome might have been erased
from the earth, if the city had not been animated by a vital principle,
which again restored her to honour and dominion. A vague tradition was
embraced, that two Jewish teachers, a tent-maker and a fisherman, had
formerly been executed in the circus of Nero; and at the end of 100 years
their genuine or fictitious relics, were adored as the Palladium of Christian
Rome. . . The temporal power of the Popes insensibly arose from the calamities
of the times, and the Roman bishops who have (since) deluged Europe and
Asia with blood, were compelled to reign as the ministers of charity and
peace. . . . The misfortunes of Rome involved the apostolical pastor in
the business of peace and war."* (* Gibbon, "Decline and Fall"
chap. xlv., p. 791.)
The Lombard sway, in its turn, became intolerable to the ambitious Popes
of Rome; and at last, through their earnest entreaties, and awful threats,
Pepin and Charlemagne came to their rescue, uprooted the Lombards from
Italy, overthrew their power, and Presented their dominions as a free
gift to the Pope.
The third horn had fallen before the rising power of the Papacy, and st
stood forth at last firmly settled in its place on the head of the Roman
beast. "The ancient patrimony of the Roman Church, consisting of
houses and farms, was transformed by the bounty of these kings, into the
temporal dominions of cities, and provinces; and the donation of the Exarchate
to the Pope was the first-fruits of the victories of Pepin. . . . The
splendid donation was granted in supreme and absolute dominion, and the
world beheld for the first time, a Christian Bishop, invested with the
prerogatives of a temporal prince: the choice of magistrates, the exercise
of justice, the imposition of taxes, the wealth of the Palace of Ravenna."*
(* * Gibbon, "Decline and Fail," chap. xlix., p. 885.)
Thus as to the time, place, and manner of its origin, the power of the
Popes of Rome fulfilled the symbolic predictions: "I considered the
horns; and behold there came up among them another little horn, before
whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots."
"The ten horns out of this (fourth) kingdom, are ten kings that shall
arise; and another shall rise after them, and he shall be diverse from
the first, and he shall subdue three kings."
The following extract, is from a recent work by a Roman Catholic writer
who has given a description of the rise of the Papacy, which could hardly
have been differently worded, had he intended to point out its fulfilment
of the prophecy of the "little horn."
"The rise of the temporal power of the Popes, presents to the mind
one of the most extraordinary phenomena, which the annals of the human
race, offer to our wonder and admiration. By a singular combination of
concurring circumstances, a new Power and a new dominion, grew up, silently
but steadily, on the ruins of that Roman empire; which had extended its
sway over, or made itself respected by, nearly all the nations, peoples,.
and races, that lived in the period of its strength and glory; and that
new power, of lowly origin, struck a deeper root, and soon exercised a
wider authority, than the empire whose gigantic ruins, it saw shivered
into fragments, and mouldering in dust. In Rome itself, the power of the
successor of Peter, grew side by side with and under the protecting shadow
of that of the Emperor; and such was the increasing influence of the Popes,
that the majesty of the supreme Pontiff was likely ere long, to dim the
splendour of the purple. The removal by Constantine of the seat of empire
from the West, to the East, from the historic banks of the Tiber to the
beautiful shores of the Bosphorus, laid the first broad foundation, of
a sovereignty, which in reality commences from that momentous change practically,
almost from that day, Rome which had witnessed the birth, the youth, the
splendour, and the decay, of the mighty race by whom her name had been
carried with her eagles, to the remotest regions of the then known world,
was gradually abandoned by the inheritors of her renown; and its people,
deserted by the Emperors, and an easy prey to the ravages of the barbarians,
whom they had no longer the courage to resist, beheld in the bishop of
Rome, their guardian, their protector, their father. Year by year the
temporal authority of the Popes, grew into shape and hardened into strength;
without violence, without bloodshed, without fraud, by the force of overwhelming
circumstances, fashioned, as if visibly, by the hand of God."
II.CHARACTER.
The circumstances connected with the origin of the Papacy fulfil then
the indications of the prophecy. Has the character of this power, answered
to that attributed to the predicted Antichrist? Certain definite phases
of evil, expressly noted in the prophetic word, will be considered further
on; but we ask now, What has been the general character of the Papal power?
If the question were proposed, Do the prophecies of the Messiah of Israel,
find a fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth? it might be answered, not only
by an appeal to definite predictions exactly fulfilled, but by a comprehensive
glance at the general scope of the mass of Messianic prophecy. The coming
Messiah was to be a wondrous supernatural being, endued with heavenly
power and wisdom, marked by matchless meekness, pure and holy, just and
merciful, great yet lowly, a sufferer and yet a king, a victim and yet
a judge, a servant of God, and yet Lord of all. By these general features,
Jesus Christ was demonstrated to be the hope of Israel, as well as by
his being born at Bethlehem, and brought up at Nazareth.
Now the Antichrist has similarly his broad characteristics; his very names
imply some of them. He is called "that wicked," or the lawless
one, who sets God s revealed will at defiance; his coming is "after
the working of Satan ;" he "opposeth and exalteth himself;"
against God, and against his people. He is to be the "man of SIN,"
the outcome of the working of "a mystery of INIQUITY." He is
the very opposite of all that is holy and good, the oppressor of all that
love God, for Satan animates him. Further, he is called "the son
of perdition," and this name, applied by our Lord to Judas Iscariot,
the traitor, would prepare us to find the man of sin, the Antichrist,*
not in some openly and avowedly infidel power, but in a professedly Christian
one.
(* "Antichrist" is a name used only in John, in four passages,
as follows, "Children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard
that the Antichrist cometh, even now are there many Antichrists"
(1John ii. 18). "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is
the Christ? This is the Antichrist which denieth the Father and the Son"
(ii. 22). "This is the spirit of the Antichrist, respecting which
ye have heard that it cometh" (1John iv. 3). "Many deceivers
are gone forth into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh; this is the deceiver and the Antichrist." The repeated
statements that Christians had heard of the coming of this Antichrist,
prove that John alludes under this name to the little horn" of Daniel,
and the "man of sin" of Paul. The name itself means, not as
is sometimes asserted, an avowed antagonist of Christ, bet one professing
to be a Vice-Christ, a rival-Christ, one who would assume the character,
occupy the place, and fulfil the functions of Christ. The incipient Antichrists
of John s own day, denied the Father and the Son, by their false doctrines
about them. Etymologically the word does not mean a person opposed to
Christ, but an opposing Christ, a vice-Christ, one assuming to be Christ.
The "son of perdition" was an apostate disciple, who betrayed
his Lord with a kiss of seeming reverence and affection. This name would
lead us to expect that a Judas character will attach to the great apostasy
and its head, and lead us therefore to look for it in the professing Christian
Church, the sphere in which Paul indeed distinctly states, that it will
be revealed.
So dark is the moral aspect of the power predicted, whatever it be, that
many conceive that no power that ever has bad an existence, can approach
its enormity of guilt and evil; and they look, in consequence, for some
future monster of iniquity who shall better fulfil the predictions of
Scripture.
When this impression is not the result of ignorance of history, it illustrates
the mournful facility with which familiarity with evil, diminishes its
enormity in our sight; for it may be safely asserted that all, not to
say more than all, these prophecies foretell, has found its realization
in the line of Roman Pontiffs.
It must be remembered that the Popes of Rome are guilty before God, not
only for all the sins they have committed, but for all the sins they have
connived at, for all the sins they have suggested, for all the sins they
have encouraged and sanctioned, and, above all, for the sins they have
commanded. When their personal character and the influence of their examples,
are considered, when the tendency of the institutions they have invented
and maintained are examined, when their bulls and laws are studied, and
their effects observed; and when all these results are multiplied, by
the extent of their dominion, the length of its duration, and the assumption
of infallibility and Divine authority that accompanied it, the impression
of unparalleled iniquity produced on the mind, defies all power of expression;
language seems too weak to embody it, and the words of inspiration seem
to fall short of; rather than to exceed, the reality.
Not only have an appalling number of the Roman Pontiffs been personally,
exceedingly wicked men, as reference to any authentic history of the Popedom
will show, (so wicked that it were a shame even to speak of the things
that were done by them;) not only have they thus abused their high position,
by setting examples of sin of the most flagrant kind; but by their laws,
exempting their innumerable clergy in all lands from the jurisdiction
of the civil power, they have protected others in sinning in the same
way: and they have, by their countless sinful and sin-causing enactments
and institutions, led others into sin, on a scale that it is positively
appalling to contemplate.
Take for instance Papal doctrines and practices on the subject of forgiveness
of sin-indulgences. The Pope made a bargain with sinners, and on certain
conditions, such as the joining in a crusade, the helping to extirpate
so-called heresy, the performance of certain pilgrimages, the repetition
of prescribed formulas, or the payment of money, he agreed to give them
pardons for sin. Finding this traffic singularly lucrative,- for what
will not men do to indulge in sin with impunity,- it was developed into
a system of fabulous wickedness. Indulgences for the dead, as well as
for the living, were freely sold, and thus the affections as well as the
selfishness of men, were turned to account for the replenishment of the
papal treasury. Some of these indulgences expressly mentioned the very
sins, which the Scriptures declare, exclude from the kingdom of heaven,
and bade those who practised them not doubt of eternal salvation, if they
bought a papal indulgence.
The number of years by which the torments of purgatory were to be abridged
by some of these indulgences, was extravagant to the last degree. John
XII. granted "ninety thousand years of pardon for deadly sins,"
for the devout repetition of three prayers, written in the chapel of the
Holy Cross at Rome. Indeed, such has, been the profligate extravagance
with which these pardons have been dispensed, and the excessive facility
with which they may be procured, that if they had been made available
according to the intention of the Church, then must purgatory, again and
again, have been swept out,-nay more, it must for ever be kept empty,
and the sins of all the sinners that ever lived, must have been forgiven
over and over again.
The sale of these indulgences for money, was the proximate cause of the
glorious Reformation. The intense disgust, and the utter abhorrence, with
which they came to be regarded, in consequence of the unblushing effrontery,
and shameless trickery, connected with their sale, roused all Germany
to resist their introduction, and stirred up Martin Luther to examine
into the rotten foundation on which they rested. The deeply interesting
story must not be told here-how Tetzel the indulgence-monger, bearing
the bull of Leo X. on a velvet cushion, travelled in state from town to
town in a gay equipage, took his station in the thronged church, and proclaimed
to the credulous multitudes, "Indulgences are the most precious and
sublime of God s gifts; this red cross has as much efficacy as the cross
of Jesus Christ. Draw near, and I will give you letters duly sealed, by
which even the sins you shall hereafter desire to commit; shall be all
forgiven you. There is no sin so great that indulgence cannot remit. Pay,
only pay largely, and you shall be forgiven. But more than all this, indulgences
save not the living alone, they also save the dead. Ye priests, ye nobles,
ye tradesmen, ye wives, ye maidens, ye young men, hearken to your departed
parents and friends, who call to you from the bottomless abyss, ’We
are enduring horrible torment, a small alms would deliver us, you can
give it, will you not? The moment the money clinks at the bottom of the
chest, the soul escapes from purgatory, and flies to heaven. With ten
groschen you can deliver your father from purgatory. Our Lord God no longer
deals with us as God-he has given all power to the Pope." The indulgences
sold were in the following form "Our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy
on thee, M. N.; and absolve thee by the merits of his most holy sufferings.
I, in virtue of the apostolic power committed to me, absolve thee from
all . . excesses, sins, and crimes, that thou mayest have committed, however
great and enormous they may be, and of whatever kind. . . . I remit the
pains thou wouldest have had to endure in purgatory, . . I restore thee
to the innocence and purity of thy baptism, so that at the moment of death,
the gates of the place of torment shall be shut against thee, and the
gates of Paradise open to thee. And if thou shouldest live long, this
grace continueth unchangeable, till the time of thy end. In the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. The brother John
Tetzel, commissary, hath signed this with his own hand."
For the wonderful and horrible account of the excesses of this abandoned
agent of the Popes, we must refer the reader to D Aubignes History of
the great Reformation, and similar works.
There was a published scale of the prices for which different sins could
be pardoned; and that the gain of money was the only object was clear,
from the enormous price charged for indulgences for certain crimes, likely
to be committed by the rich, crimes only by the laws of the church,- while
the grossest violations of the law of God were excused for a trifle. The
royal, and merely conventional crime, of marriage with a first cousin;
cost ú1000, while the terrible sins of wife murder or parricide cost only
ú4
"The institution of indulgence," says Spanheim, "was the
mint which coined money, for the Roman Church; the gold mines for the
profligate nephews and natural children of the Popes; the nerves of the
Papal wars; the means of liquidating debt; and the inexhaustible fountain
of luxury to the Popes." The curse fell on Simon Magus for thinking
that the gift of God might be purchased with money; what shall we say
of, him, who pretends that he has Divine authority to sell the grace of
God for money? Of him, who leads millions of immortal souls to incur the
guilt and curse of Simon Magus, under the delusion that they are securing
salvation? and who leads them to do this for his own wicked and selfish
ends? Is it possible to find guilt of a deeper die, perfidy of a more
atrociously cruel and satanic character? Even the Jews could say, "None
can forgive sins save God only;" what shall we say of him who professes
to blot out guilt, and remove its penalty, from countless thousands who
repose unlimited confidence in him, in order to secure his own evil ends?
"Whoso confesseth and forsaketh his sin, shall find mercy;"
what shall we say of him who offers boundless mercy, to ’those who
so love and cleave to their sins, as to be willing to pay enormous prices
for permission to commit them? of him who, makes plenary pardon dependent
on mere outward acts, prayers, pilgrimages, payments, or even on the commission
of other gross sins, massacres, extirpation of heretics, etc.? The Psalmist
prayed "Keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins, O Lord;"
what shall we say of him, who encourages to presumptuous sin, by the prospect
of plenary pardon at the moment of death, on condition of holding a candle,
or kissing a bead? That this practice is a mighty and effective inducement
to sin, no one acquainted with human nature, and the operation of moral
causes, can question: and, worse still, it misrepresents the atonement
of Christ, asserting its insufficiency to put away sin; it denies the
boundlessness and freedom of the love of God, and of the Gospel of grace,
which offers pardon without money and without price; it gives false impressions
of the true nature of sin, the guilt of which is so great that blood-
shedding alone can remove it; it separates what God has indissolubly joined,
justification and sanctification, providing pardon apart from a change
of heart; it conceals from view the tribunal of the righteous Judge, and
draws men to a fellow-man, sinners to a fellow-sinner, for pardon. It
is opposed to the doctrines of "repentance toward God, and faith
in our Lord Jesus Christ," as well as to all practical godliness,
and is a characteristic creation of "that wicked, whose coming is
after the working of Satan."
Its institution and patronage of the Order of the Jesuits is another of
the exceedingly sinful deeds of the Papacy. This Society, which has dared
to appropriate to itself the Name which is above every name, by calling
itself "The Order of Jesus," deserves rather, from the nature
of its doctrines, and from the work it has done in the world, to be called
"The Order of Satan." Founded by Ignatius Loyola, a Spanish
officer, cotemporary with Luther, its great object was, to subjugate the
whole human race, ’to the power of the Papacy. From the book of the
"Constitutions" of the Jesuits, we obtain the evidence that
condemns their Order as a masterpiece of the father of lies.
Expediency, in its most licentious form, is the basis of their whole system
of morality. Their doctrine of "probability;" their doctrine
of "mental reservation," by which lying and perjury are justified;
their doctrine of "intention," which renders the most solemn
oath of no power to bind a man; the way in which, by their glosses, they
make void the law of God in every one of its precepts, and give licence
to every crime, not excepting murder, and even parricide, all these render
their whole system of morals a bottomless abyss of iniquity.
This is no mere Protestant account of the Jesuits; their extraordinary
viciousness, has led to their suppression, and expulsion, at various times,
by different Catholic sovereigns in Europe. In stating their grounds for
such action, these monarchs give descriptions of Jesuit morality, which
could scarcely be worse. The Catholic king of Portugal says "It cannot
be, but that the licentiousness introduced by the Jesuits, of which the
three leading features are falsehood, murder, and perjury, should give
a new character to morals. Their doctrines render murder innocent, sanctify
falsehood, authorize perjury, deprive the laws of their power, destroy
the submission of subjects, allow individuals the liberty of killing,
calumniating, lying and forswearing themselves, as their advantage may
dictate; they remove the fear of Divine and human laws, so that Christian
and civil society could not exist; where they are paramount."
In 1767 they were expelled from Spain on similar grounds. They were also
expelled from Venice (1606); from Savoy (1729); from France (1764); from
Sicily (1767), and from various other States. From 1555 to 1773 they suffered
no less than thirty-seven expulsions, all on account of their iniquitous
doctrines and evil practices.
The Catholic University of Paris, in 1643, said of them: "The laws
of God have been so sophisticated by their unheard of subtleties, that
there is no longer any difference between vice and virtue; they promise
infinity to the most flagrant crimes; their doctrines are inimical to
all order; and if such a pernicious theology were received, deserts and
forests would be preferable to cities; and society with wild beasts, who
have only their natural arms, would be better than society with men, who,
in addition to the violence of their passions, would be instructed by
this doctrine of devils, to dissimulate and feign, in order to destroy
others with greater impunity. It is a device of the great enemy of souls."
The Parliament of Paris, in 1762, used language quite as strong in a memorial
to the king, accompanying a collection of extracts from 147 Jesuit authors,
which they presented to him, "that he might be acquainted with the
wickedness of the doctrine constantly held by the Jesuits, from the institution
of their Society to the present moment-a doctrine authorizing robbery,
lying, perjury, impurity; all passions, and all crimes; inculcating homicide,
parricide, and regicide; overturning religion and sanctioning magic, blasphemy,
irreligion, and idolatry."
The book of "secret instructions," generally attributed to Lainez,
the second Father-general of the Order, contains-directions so unprincipled,
that on the first page it is ordained that, if the book fell into the
hands of strangers, it was to be positively denied that these were the
rules of the Society! This book gives directions for the attainment of
power, influence, and wealth, by means of the vilest intrigues: the vices
of the rich and great, were to be pandered to in every way; spies were
to be diligently sought and liberally rewarded; animosities were to be
fostered and stirred up among enemies, in order to weaken them; the dying
were to be watched as if by vultures, and promised canonization by the
Pope, if they would bequeath their property to this Order. Women who were
found in confession to have bad husbands, were to be instructed to withdraw
a sum of money secretly, to be given to the Society, as a sacrifice for
their husbands sins. To all classes, but especially to the great and rich,
any vicious indulgence they desired might be allowed, in order to soothe
and win them, provided public scandal were avoided. These and multitudes
of similar injunctions, are based on the doctrine, that we may do evil
that good may come, that "the end sanctifies the means." Scripture
says of those who hold and teach this doctrine, that their "damnation
is just."
The same principle led Jesuit missionaries into the most sinful compromises
with heathen superstitions and philosophies in different parts of the
world. In India they swore that they were Brahmins of pure descent, sanctioned
some of the most abominable habits of idolatry, and practised some of
the worst Hindu austerities, to acquire fame. In China, they pretended
that there was only a shade of difference between the doctrine of Christ
and the teachings of Confucius; and to make proselytes, they taught, instead
of pure Christianity; a corrupt system of religion and morality, that
was quite consistent with the indulgence of all the passions. Nay, so
far did they go, that, finding the Crucifixion was a stumbling-block to
the philosophic Chinese, as to the Jews of old, they actually denied that
Christ was ever crucified at all; and said it was a base calumny invented
by the Jews, to throw contempt on the Gospel! They told the Red Indians
that Jesus Christ was a mighty chief; who had scalped more men and women
and children than any warrior that had ever lived! Having no real principles,
they were willing to make any compromise, no matter how foul, provided
’they could by it advance the interests of their Order, or swell
the roll of recruits. to the Roman army.
Now, when we remember that the teachings of these Jesuits are not only
permitted, but received as standard authorities in the Roman Catholic
Church, and directly sanctioned by the Popes, what shall we say of the
so-called Vicar of Christ? Is not this the deceivableness of unrighteousness?
Is not this the doctrine of devils? And is not he who sanctions and patronizes
such an "Order" of Satan, "the lawless one"? Is he
not, and does he not richly deserve to be, "a son of perdition"?
Is he not a "man of sin" who speaks lies in hypocrisy, having
his conscience seared with a hot iron? Where, if not here, shall we ever
detect the predicted mystery of iniquity?
That the line of Roman Pontiffs, have been for the most part personally
wicked men, there can be no doubt; that many of their institutions, besides
the two just considered, have been fearfully fruitful sources of deep
deluges of sin, is also unquestionable; but perhaps nothing more fully
warrants the application to them of the distinctive title, "The Man
of Sin," than the fact that they have commanded sin. If Aaron was
doubly guilty because he led the people to worship the golden calf; if
the wickedness of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, is intensified by the fact
that he "caused Israel to sin," what must be the dark guilt,
and the dreadful doom of those, who have led the professing Church of
Christ into the foulest idolatry, and into sin of every conceivable kind,
not only by example, not only by false doctrines and evil practice, but
also by direct commands- commands delivered in the name of the Lord, and
believed by the people to have Divine authority; and this not to a few,
not as an occasional thing, or during a brief period, but to all papal
Christendom and throughout long ages!
This double dyed guilt, lies at the door of the power we are considering.
Did not the Popes of Rome, for their own selfish ends, command, what Scripture
forbids, the celibacy of the clergy, and thus lead the whole body, in
all lands, into disobedience to God in this respect, a disobedience that
was the direct cause of the wide-spread and unfathomable flood of moral
corruption, that deluged Europe for ages? Have not the Popes, times without
number, commanded idolatries, persecutions, treasons, rebellions, regicides?
Any collection of papal bulls, presents a very harvest of commands to
sin, commands which were, alas! only too faithfully obeyed by multitudes.
And how often have they prohibited, the very things enjoined by God! Is
not this a negative command to sin? Christ bids all men, for instance,
"Search the Scriptures," "prove all things, and hold fast
that which is good." On no one point, are the Popes more resolved
to enforce disobedience to the Divine will; in bull after bull they have
forbidden the use of the Scriptures in their own tongue to the people,
saying, "Let it be lawful for no man whatever to infringe this declaration
of our will and command, or to go against it with bold rashness."
When Wickliffe published his translation, Pope Gregory sent a bull to
the University of Oxford (1378) condemning the translator as having "run
into a detestable kind of wickedness." When Tyndale published his
translation, it was condemned. In 1546, when Luther was preparing his
German version, Leo X. published a bull, couched in the most vile and
opprobrious language. The indignation of Pius VII. (and other Popes) against
Bible Societies, knows no bounds. He speaks of the Bible Society as a
"crafty device by which the very foundations of religion are undermined,"
as "a pestilence dangerous to Christianity;" "a defilement
of the faith, eminently dangerous to souls;" "a nefarious scheme,"
etc., and strictly commands, that every version of the Scriptures into
a vulgar tongue, without the church s notes, should be placed in the Index
among prohibited books. Curses are freely bestowed on those who assert
the liberty of the laity to read the Scriptures, and every possible impediment
is thrown in the way of their circulation. Bible burning is a favourite
ceremony with Papists; and their ignorance of the real contents of the
book, is almost incredible. The famous bull "Unigenitus," A.D.
1713, condemns the proposition that "the reading of the Scriptures
is for everybody" as "false, shocking, scandalous, impious,
and blasphemous."
What must be the guilt, in the eyes of God, of the men who thus withhold
the word, by which alone they can be born again, from myriads of perishing
sinners, over whose consciences they have perfect sway!
III. SELF-EXALTING UTTERANCES.
One of the leading characteristics of the power symbolised by the "little
horn" is "a mouth speaking great things." The destruction
of the beast is said to be, "because of the great words which the
little horn spake." The same point is noted also in Rev. xiii., where
the beast is said to have "a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemies."
*
(* "Blasphemy in Scripture means not so much a speaking against God,
as the assumption of Divine attributes or Divine power where no rightful
claim to do so exists. Thus, in #Matt 9, the scribes said of Jesus, ’this
man blasphemeth, because He said to the sick of the palsy, ’thy sins
be forgiven thee. Jesus could rightly say so, therefore their charge was
false. Rome, through her priesthood, can not rightly say so, therefore
our charge against her is true; she blasphemeth. Again, in #Joh 10:30-33,
we read that, when Jesus said, ’I and my Father are one the Jews
took up stones to stone Him, saying, ’for a good work we stone Thee
not, but for blasphemy, and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself
God. Jesus and his Father were one, therefore the charge of blasphemy
was vain; the Pope and God are not one, therefore our charge of blasphemy
is true. He that says, ’I am the sole last supreme judge of what
is right and wrong, blasphemeth.’ - "Words of the Little Horn,"by
Rev. H. E. Brooke.)
Paul similarly predicts of the man of sin, that he will oppose and exalt
himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped." We must
therefore inquire whether self exalting utterances of a peculiarly imp
ibus nature; have been a characteristic of the Papacy? We turn to the
public documents, issued by various Popes, and find, that they have fulfilled
in a marvellous way this prediction; the pretensions they have made are
blasphemies, the claims they have put forth, are, to be equal, if not
superior to God Himself; no power on earth has ever advanced similar pretensions.
-Fox, in his "Acts and Monuments," gives extracts from two hundred
and twenty-three authentic documents, comprising decrees, decretals, extravagants,
pontificals, and bulls, all of which are indisputable evidence. Twenty
pages of small type in ’a large volume, are filled with the "great
words" of the Popes, taken from these two hundred and twenty-three
documents alone. What a crop would a complete collection of Papal publications
afford! Space forbids many quotations; let the reader judge of the mass
from the following samples, which we blend into one, in order to help
the conception. If "he that exalteth himself shall be abased,"
what degradation can be commensurate with such self-exaltation as this?
"Wherefore, seeing such power is given to Peter, and to me in Peter,
being his successor, who is he then in all the world that ought not to
be subject to my decrees, which have such power in heaven, in hell, in
earth, with the quick, and also the dead. . . . By the jurisdiction of
which key the fulness of my power is so great that, whereas all others
are subjects -yea, and emperors themselves, ought to subdue their executions
to me; only I am a subject to no creature, no, not to myself; so that
my papal majesty ever remaineth undiminished; superior to all men; whom
all persons ought to obey, and follow, whom no man must judge or accuse
of any crime, no man depose but I myself. No man can excommunicate me,
yea though I commune with the excommunicated, for no canon hindereth me:
whom no man must lie to, for he that lieth to me is a church robber, and
who obeyeth not me is a heretic, and an excommunicated person. . . . Thus,
then, it appeareth, that the greatness of priesthood began in Melchizedek,
was solemnized in Aaron, continued in the children of Aaron; perfectionated
in Christ, represented in Peter, exalted in the universal jurisdiction,
and manifested in the Pope. So that through this pre-eminence of my priesthood,
having all things subject to me, it may seem well verified in me, that
was spoken of Christ, ’Thou hast subdued all things under his feet,
sheep and oxen, and all cattle of the field, the birds of heaven, and
fish of the sea, etc., where is it to be noted that by oxen, Jews and
heretics; by cattle of the field, Pagans be signified. . . By sheep and
all cattle, are meant all Christian men, both great and less, whether
they be emperors, princes, prelates, or others. By birds of the air you
may understand angels and potentates of heaven, who be all subject to
me, in that I am greater than the angels, and that in four things, as
afore declared; and have power to bind and loose in heaven, and to give
heaven to them that fight in my wars. Lastly, by the fishes of the sea,
are signified the souls departed, in pain or in purgatory. . . . For,
as we read, ’The earth is the Lord s and the fulness thereof;"
and, as Christ saith, ’All power is given to Him, both in heaven
and in earth: so it is to be affirmed, that the Vicar of Christ hath power
on things celestial, terrestrial, and infernal, which he took immediately
of Christ. . . . I owe to the emperors no due obedience that they can
claim, but they owe to me, as to their superior; and, therefore, for a
diversity betwixt their degree and mine, in their consecration they take
the unction on their arm, I on the head. And as I am superior to them,
so am I superior to all laws, and free from all constitutions; who am
able of myself, and by my interpretation, to prefer equity not being written,
before the law written; having all laws, within the chest of my breast,
as is aforesaid. . . . What country soever, kingdom, or province, choosing
to themselves bishops and ministers, although they agree with all other
Christ s faithful people in the name of Jesu, that is, in faith and charity,
believing in the same God. And in Christ, his true Son, and in the Holy
Spirit, having also the same creed, the same evangelists, and scriptures
of the apostles; yet, notwithstanding, unless their bishops and ministers
take their origin and ordination from this apostolic seat, they are to
be counted not of the church, so that succession of faith only is not
sufficient to make a church, except the ministers take their ordination
from them who have their succession from the apostles. . . . And likewise
it is to be presumed that the bishop of that church is always good and
holy. Yea, though he fall into homicide or adultery, he may sin, but yet
he cannot be accused, but rather excused by the murders of Samson, the
thefts of the Hebrews, etc. All the earth is my diocese, and I the ordinary
of all men, having the authority of the King of all kings upon subjects.
I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the Vicar of
God, have both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God
can do. In all things that I list, my will is to stand for reason, for
I am able by the law to dispense above the law, and of wrong to make justice
in correcting laws and changing them. . . . Wherefore, if those things
that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God: WHAT CAN YOU MAKE
ME BUT God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called and counted of
Constantine for gods, I then, being above all prelates, seem by this reason
to be ABOVE ALL GODS. Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to change
time and times, to alter and abrogate laws, to dispense with all things,
yea, with the precepts of Christ; for where Christ biddeth Peter put up
his sword, and admonishes his disciples not to use any outward force in
revenging themselves, do not I, Pope Nicholas, writing to the bishops
of France, exhort them to draw out their material swords? And, whereas
Christ was present Himself at the marriage in Cam of Galilee, do not I,
Pope Martin, in my distinction, inhibit the spiritual clergy to be present
at marriage-feasts, and also to marry? Moreover, where Christ biddeth
us lend without hope of gain, do not I, Pope Martin, give dispensation
for the same? What should I speak of murder, making it to be no murder
or homicide to slay them that be excommunicated? Like. wise, against the
law of nature, item against the apostles, also against the canons of the
apostles, I can and do dispense; for where they, in their canon, command
a priest for fornication to be deposed, I, through the authority of Silvester,
do alter the rigour of that constitution, considering the minds and bodies
also of men now to be weaker than they were then. . . . If ye list briefly
to hear the whole number of all such cases as properly do appertain to
my Papal dispensation, which come to the number of one-and fifty points,
that no man may meddle with but only 1 myself alone, I will recite them
"The Pope doth canonize saints, and none else but he.
"His sentence maketh a law.
"He is able to abolish laws, both civil and canon.
"To erect new religions, to approve or reprove rules or ordinances,
and ceremonies in the Church.
"He is able to dispense with all the precepts and statutes of the
Church. "The same is also free from all laws, so that he cannot incur
any sentence of excommunication, suspension, irregularity, etc., etc.
"After that I have now sufficiently declared my power in earth, in
heaven, in purgatory, how great it is, and what is the fulness thereof
in binding, loosing, commanding, permitting, electing, confirming, disposing,
dispensing, doing and undoing, etc., I will speak now a little of my riches
and of my great possessions, that every man may see by my wealth, and
abundance of all things, rents, tithes, tributes, my silks, my purple
mitres, crowns, gold, silver, pearls and gems, land and lordships. For
to me pertaineth first the imperial city of Rome; the palace of Lateran;
the kingdom of Sicily is proper to me, Apulia and Capua be mine. Also
the kingdom of England and Ireland, be they not, or ought they not to
be, tributaries to me? To these I adjoin also, ’besides other provinces
and countries , both in the Occident and Orient, from, the north to the
south, these dominions by name (here follows a long list). What should
I speak here of my daily revenues, of my first-fruits, annates, pails,
indulgences, bulls, confessionals, indults and rescripts, testaments,
dispensations, privileges, elections, prebends, religious houses, and
such like, which come to no small mass of money? . . . whereby what vantage
cometh to my coffers it may partly be conjectured. . . . But what should
I speak of Germany, when the whole world is my diocese, as my canonists
do say, and all men are hound to believe; except they will imagine (as
the Manichees do) two beginnings, which is false and heretical? For Moses
saith, In the beginning God made heaven and earth; and not, In the beginnings.
Wherefore, as I began, so I conclude, commanding, declaring, and pronouncing,
to stand UPON NECESSITY OF SALVATION, FOR EVERY HUMAN CREATURE TO BE SUBJECT
TO ME,"
Add to these utterances, which might be multiplied by the thousand, the
usual formula of investiture with the papal tiara: "Receive this
triple crown, and know that thou art the father of princes, and the king
and ruler of the world." And in proof that the claims here advanced
are no obsolete medieval assumptions, abandoned in modern times, but the
unchangeable voice of the Papacy, take a few "great words" from
a comparatively recent sermon of the principal representative of Rome
in England, Cardinal Manning, who puts the following similar language
into the mouth of the Pope.
"You say I have no authority over the Christian world, that I am
not the Vicar of the Good Shepherd, that I am not the supreme interpreter
of the Christian faith. I am all these. You ask me to abdicate, to renounce
my supreme authority. You tell me I ought to submit to. the civil power,
that I am the subject of the King of Italy, and from him I am to receive
instructions as to the way I should exercise the civil power. I say I
am liberated from all civil subjection, that my Lord made me the subject
of no one on earth, king or otherwise; that in his right I am Sovereign.
I acknowledge no civil superior. I am the subject of no prince, and I
claim more than this. I claim to be the Supreme Judge and director of
the consciences of men; of the peasant that tills the field, and the prince
that sits on the throne; of the household that lives in the shade of privacy,
and the Legislature that makes laws for kingdoms. I am the sole, last,
Supreme Judge of what is right and wrong."
In full harmony with this assumption is the new definition of Papal infallibility:
"The Roman Pontiff when he speaks ’ex cathedra,’ that is,
when, in discharge of his office of pastor and doctor of all Christians,
by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding
faith and morals, to be held, by the universal church, he envoys infallibility,
and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable
of themselves, and not from the consent of the church. And if any one
presume to contradict this definition, let him be anathema."
Index I. 1 2 3 II. 1 2 3 III. 1 2 (next) IV. a. 1 2 b. 1 2 3 c. 1 2 3 4 5 6
