« EelmineJätka »
cidedly opposed to the pernicious errors of Papal Rome. Let us, in the second place, imbibe a more ardent charity towards our Protestant brethren of other communions, convinced as we may be of what small moment are the differences, which separate from each other the various churches of the Reformation, when compared with the almost immeasurable distance at which all genuine Protestants* are removed from that church, which was exhibited to the Apostle John, under the form of a Harlot, drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.
* Under this designation I do not include those who deny the Divinity and atonement of our Lord. They are even farther removed from the truth than the Church of Rome.
Those holy and intrepid men whom God raised up to be deliverers of nations from the chains of darkness of Papal Rome, in their mighty struggle with spiritual wickedness in high places, wielded all the weapons of the sanctuary. They were not contented with vindicating the Reformation by proving its doctrines to be consonant with the word of God, in the noble defences of the truth which are imbodied in their confessions. They carried the war into the very camp of the enemy. Holding up in the face of Papal Rome the Mirror of Prophecy, they denounced that Church as BABYLON THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS, and the Pope as the MAN OF SIN and SON OF PERDITION, sitting as God in the temple of God. In the last as well as the former part of this testimony, they were equally unanimous. No example of hesitation is to be found among them as to the character of Papal Rome.
Luther in his treatise on the Babylonian captivity of the Church, says, “ I know, and am certain, that the Papacy is the Kingdom of Babylon, and the power of Nimrod the mighty hunter."*
In his answer to the book of Ambrosius Catharinus, he every where applies to the Pope the prophecy of St. Paul, 2 Thess. ii. 1-12. “Is not this to sit in the temple of God, to profess himself to be ruler in the whole church? What is the temple of God ? is it stones and wood ? Did not Paul
the temple of God is holy, which temple are ye? To sit, what is it but to reign, to teach, and to judge? Who from the beginning of the Church has dared to call himself the ruler of the whole Church, but the Pope alone? None of the Saints, none of the Heretics, hath ever uttered so horrible a word of pride. Paul speaks of himself as a teacher of the Gentiles, in faith and truth, but not the teacher of the Church.”+
* Scio autem et certus sum Papatum esse regnum Ba. bylonis et potentiam Nimrod robusti venatoris. Oper. Tom. ii. Fol. 273. Jena, 1557.
+ I shall give the original of the last part of this passage. “ Sedere autem quid est, nisi regnare, docere et judicare? Quis autem unquam ab initio Ecclesiæ, sese ausus est Ma. gistrum totius Ecclesiæ appellare, nisi solus Papa ? Nul. lus sanctorum, nullus hæreticorum tam horrendam super. biæ vocem unquam sonuit. Paulus se Magistrum, Genti. um in fide et veritate jactat, sed non Magistrum Eccle. siæ."--Oper. Tom. ii. Fol. 385.
In another place, he says that when Daniel “saw the terrible wild Beast which had ten horns (which by the consent of all is the Roman Empire) he also beheld another small horn come up in the middle of them. This is the Papal power which rose up in the middle of the Roman Empire.” (Oper. Tom. ii. fol. 386.)
Melancthon also, in his Disputation on Marriage, says on 1 Tim. iv. 1-3. “But since it is most certain that the Pontiffs and the Monks have forbidden marriage, it is most manifest and without any doubt true, that the Roman Pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is the very Antichrist."
Likewise in 2 Thess. ii. “ Paul clearly says, that the Man of Sin shall rule in the church, exalting himself against the worship of God, &c. But it is manifest that the Popes rule in the Church, and under title of the Church, (in Ecclesia et titulo Ecclesiæ dominari Pontifices) defending idols. Wherefore I affirm that no heresy hath ever arisen, nor indeed shall be, with which these descriptions of Paul can more truly or certainly ac
cord and agree, than to this Papal king. dom."
“ The Prophet Daniel also attributes these two things to Antichrist, viz. that he shall place an idol in the temple and honour it with gold and silver; and that he shall not honour women. That both these things belong to the Roman Pontiff, who does not clearly see? The idols are clearly the impious mass, the worship of saints, and the statues which are exhibited in gold and silver, that they may be worshipped.” (Melancth. Oper. Tom. iv. fol. 537. Wittemberg, 1563.)
Calvin, in his Institutes, bears a similar testimony. “We appear (says he) to some too reproachful and abusive, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist; but they who thus think, do not understand that they accuse Paul of extravagance, after whom we speak, yea out of whose mouth we speak; and let no one object that we rashly twist the words of Paul to the Roman Pontiff, which are otherwise applicable. I shall briefly show that they cannot be otherwise understood than of the Papacy. Paul writes that Antichrist shall sit in the temple of God.”_"Hence, we infer, that he shall be