Page images
PDF
EPUB

such as neither to abolish the name of Christ or of the Church, but shall rather abuse the disguise of Christ (sed potius Christi prætextu abutatur), and conceal himself under the title of the Church as a visor.”_" Since, then, it is apparent that the Roman Pontiff has transferred to himself that which properly belongs to God alone, and to Christ, it is not to be doubted that he is the leader and standard bearer of the impious and abominable kingdom.” (Inst. Lib. iv. Cap. vii. § 25.)

The English Reformers were no less unanimous as to the character of the Papacy. Cranmer, when about to be committed to the flames, thus testified:—“ As for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy and the Antichrist, with all his false doctrine." (Richmond's Fathers of the English Church, vol. iii. p. 48.) Latimer, when examined by the commissioners on his trial, said, “I confess there is a Catholic Church, to the determination of which I will stand, but not the Church which you call Catholic, which sooner might be called diabolic.” (Richmond's Fathers of the English Church, vol. ii. p. 411.) In his second conference with Ridley, he says, “ Yea, what fellowship has Christ with Antichrist? Therefore, it is not lawful to bear the yoke with Papists. Come forth from among them, and separate yourselves from them, saith the Lord.(Richmond's Fathers of the English Church, vol. iv. p. 103.) Ridley, in his farewell letter before he suffered, thus expresses himself, “ The See of Rome is the seat of Satan, and the Bishop of the same that maintaineth the abominations thereof is Antichrist himself indeed. And for the same causes, this See at this day is the same which St. John calls, in his Revelation, Babylon, or the Whore of Babylon, and spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, the Mother of fornications and abominations upon earth.” (Richmond's Fathers of the English Church, vol. iv. p. 56.) Jewell, likewise, throughout his commentary on 2 Thess. charges upon the Papacy all that St. Paul writes of the MAN OF Sin, and SON OF PERDITION.

John Knox, the great leader of the Scottish Reformation, at a public Disputation, between a Popish Priest and John Rough, thus replied to an argument of the Romanist on the supreme authority of the Church:

“ Before that we are convinced of that, we must define the Church by the right tokens given us in God's word of the true Church ;

we must discern the immaculate spouse of Christ from the mother of confusion, spiritual Babylon; lest that imprudently we embrace a harlot instead of the chaste spouse; yea, to speak it in plain words, lest we submit ourselves to Satan, thinking that we submit ourselves to Jesus Christ; for as for your Roman Church as it is now corrupted, and the authority thereof, wherein stands the hope of your victory, I no more doubt that it is the synagogue of Satan; and the head thereof called the Pope to be that MAN OF Sin, of whom the Apostle speaketh, than that I doubt that Jesus Christ suffered by the procurement of the visible Church at Jeru

salem."*

To the testimony of the Fathers of the Reformation, may since be added the unanimous voice of a noble company of men of the deepest learning and piety, including the names of Mede, Brightman, Cressener, Whiston, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishops Newton and Hurd, William Lowth, Dr. H. More, Daubuz, Jurieu, Vitringa, Pyle, Dr. S. Clarke, &c. &c. to say nothing of living authors. And be it observed, that all these writers do with

See a Periodical Work called the John Knox, published in Glasgow, March, 1824, also McCrie's Life of Knox,

p. 45.

perfect unanimity concur with the Reformers in the application of the prophecies concerning BABYLON 'and the Man of Sin, to the Church of Rome and the Papacy. They are men also quite above the suspicion of prejudice, or of having servilely copied from those who went before them.

Our lot is, however, cast in an age," when no mind seems disposed to rest contented with either ancient opinions or ancient insti. tutions, and no want of adequate knowledge, no state of ignorance will produce those deferent qualities so useful, so necessary to us all, but, on the contrary, appear universally to increase the appetite for objection and mistrust.” (Turner's Sacred History of the World, Letter I. pp. 1, 2.)- The great enemy of God and man is evidently taking advantage of this unsettled state of.men's minds on every subject, and through the instrumentality of the open as well as the secret adherents of Rome, and of some weak Protestants, he is acting on a systematic plan for throwing the whole system of prophetic exposition into inextricable confusion.-All the Protestant principles of interpretation which to the wiser men of a former age, appeared irrevocably established, must, it seems, then,

to satisfy the cravings of that spirit of scepticism which is unsettling all knowledge and all faith, as well as to further the insidious designs of Rome Papal, be now called in question.—They will, however, come out of the ordeal appointed for them, triumphantly, and to the confusion of their enemies.

The first writer of the present day who controverted some of these principles, was Mr. Granville Penn. He, in his Christian's Survey, published in the year 1811, rejected the application of the LITTLE Horn of the Fourth Beast of Daniel to the Papacy, and maintained that the French Empire under Napoleon was signified by it. His argnments were considered by me in the preface to the first edition of my Dissertation on the Seals, (See 3d Ed. Preface, p. iv, second Note,) and his interpretation was in three short years levelled with the dust by the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte, and the destruction of his empire.

To the name of Mr. Penn must now be added some clergymen of the English Church, who are following the same course.

The number I cannot pretend to estimate, though only five or six names happen to be known to me. So far as I am acquainted with their

« EelmineJätka »