XI. The Protestant Idea of Antichrist

[British Critic, Oct. 1840]

{112} THE Discourses which Dr. Todd has recently given to the world, are, perhaps, the first attempt for a long course of years in this part of Christendom to fix a dispassionate attention and a scientific interpretation upon the momentous "Prophecies relating to Antichrist in the writings of Daniel and St. Paul." When men set out by resolving that a certain ecclesiastical power, or foreign enemy, or political principle, or historical personage, must and shall be the scope of the inspired announcement, which is too often done, they are not, of course, sure to be wrong in their conclusion, but they are pretty sure to be unfair in their proofs. Candour, judgment, critical acumen, exactness in reasoning, adherence to principles, whether of interpretation or of theology, these and similar qualities are not to be expected of such expositors; they start with a prejudice, they argue as advocates, and they end in a foregone conclusion. Faults such as these cannot be imputed to Dr. Todd; he is methodical, careful, and accurate in his investigations, and clear and unaffected in his manner of presenting them before his readers.

Far from imposing a meaning upon Scripture, in order to make it tally with events in the history of the day, if he {113} has a fault, it rather lies in his proving too little from it; that is, in his being rather bent on disproving what others advance than in establishing, according to the sense of the Catholic Church, anything positive and substantial instead. An adversary would impute to his discussions some deficiency of poetry, by which we mean a deficiency of that subtlety of thought and sensitiveness of feeling which is the best preparative for entering into those superhuman announcements and descriptions upon which he has written. We have pleasure in believing that in matters of doctrine we entirely agree with Dr. Todd; and, judging from what Dr. Arnold has published, we are sorrowfully conscious that we do not agree with Dr. Arnold; still, as regards the principles of prophetical interpretation, we think that there is a deeper philosophy in Dr. Arnold's two Sermons lately published than in the Discourses before us. This, however, we avow merely because by our profession we are critics, and, in giving an opinion on the subject, are performing a task which may even be expected of us. Having given it, we may with a safe conscience proceed to the consideration of the main position on which Dr. Todd has employed himself, which we cannot but consider to be most true and most important, and to entitle him to the gratitude of all churchmen.

That position is this, that the prophecies concerning Antichrist are as yet unfulfilled, and that the predicted enemy of the Church is yet to come. No one can deny the importance of such a view of the subject, if it be true. If dreadful scenes still await the Church, if they have been foretold, and foretold that Christians may be prepared for them, no calamity can be greater than a belief that they have already been fulfilled, and that there is nothing to look out for or to fear; no device of {114} Satan can be more crafty than to make us think that they are not to come, that they have come to pass already,—nay, that they have been fulfilled in a branch of the Church herself, that Church which was ordained by her Divine Author ever to be one, all over the earth, and to live in internal peace, not in mutual revilings and accusations, in strife and hatred.

But there is another reason why Dr. Todd's work is seasonable and important. We consider that it is impossible to hold certain branches of the Church to be the communion of Antichrist, as it has long been the fashion with Protestants to maintain, without involving our own branch in the charge; if any part of the Church be anti-Christian, it will be found that all the Church is so, our own branch inclusive. We are much disposed to question whether any tests can be given to prove that the Roman communion is the Synagogue of Satan, which will not, in the judgment of the many, implicate the Church of England. This is a most serious consideration, in proportion as we believe it to hold good. In such case it will not be from any special leaning towards Romanism that we shall be eager to prove that Rome is not the seat of the Enemy of God; it will arise simply from prudential motives, if we have no other. As to Rome, we owe her of late years nothing at all, except indeed, according to the Scripture rule, love for hatred. Nothing that we can say will soften one whit that obdurate temper, or touch that secular political spirit, which at present is dominant among her children. Therefore we take up Dr. Todd's position, if we must give our reason, from nothing more or less than the mere instinct of self-preservation. It is very well for Sandemanian, Ranter, or Quaker to call Rome the seat of Antichrist. We cannot afford to do so; nostra res agitur: we {115} come next. Members of our Church are entreated to consider this carefully. In thus assaulting Rome, they are using an argument which is with equal certainty, if not with equal fulness, available against their own religious position; an argument which, if they use it consistently, must drive them forward into some still more simple system of religion, nay, on and on they know not whither, till "tota jacet Babylon." [Note 1] If, indeed, it be a truth that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, let us of course boldly follow it out; but surely, considering the uncertain arguments on which prophetical interpretations must rest, and that clear evidence on which the Articles of the Creed and the principles of Christian ethics are received, it is necessarily no slight argument against a certain interpretation, that it is found legitimately to lead to the denial whether of Christian doctrine or of Christian duty. If we cannot consistently hold that the Pope is Antichrist, without holding that the principle of establishments, the Christian ministry, and the most sacred Catholic doctrines, are fruits of Antichrist, surely the lengths we must run are a reductio ad absurdum of the position with which we start. If we must deny either that Christian Rome is Babylon, or affirm that Socinus was right, it is not difficult to see which proposition must give way.

And another serious question is this, whether we ought not to be very sure before we assert that a branch of Christ's Church, not merely has evil extensively prevailing within it, but is actually the kingdom of evil, the kingdom of God's enemy; considering that, if it be not the {116} kingdom of darkness, it is the Church, the dwelling-place of the Most High. The question really lies, be it observed, between those two alternatives, either the Church of Rome is the house of God or the house of Satan; there is no middle ground between them. Now, surely our Lord's strong language about the consequences of speaking against the Gracious Presence which inhabits the Church, or of ascribing the works of the Spirit to Beelzebub, is enough to make us very cautious of forming a judgment against particular branches of the Church, unless we are very certain what we are saying. If we are not "treading upon the adder," we are "kicking against the pricks."

These are some principal reasons which lead us to feel thankful to Dr. Todd for the careful and learned work which he has presented to the Christian public; and with the hope of strengthening the Scripture argument to which he has for the most part confined himself, we shall here employ ourselves on some collateral thoughts upon the subject, chiefly of an antecedent nature, whether in answer to like antecedent objections, or the expansion of considerations which we have already suggested.

1.

That Scripture contains intimations of the coming of a special enemy of Christ and His Church, of great power, craft, and wickedness, is undeniable. He is described by St. Paul and Daniel, in the prophecies which Mr. Todd undertakes to elucidate, as "the man of sin," "the lawless one," "the son of perdition," "a king of fierce countenance, and of look more stout than his fellows;" as "having eyes," and "a mouth speaking very great things," and "understanding dark sentences;" as a liar {117} and hypocrite, and of a seared conscience; as "doing according to his will;" as "opposing, exalting, and magnifying himself above every god," and "all that is called God, or that is worshipped;" as "speaking marvellous things against the God of gods;" as "sitting as God in the temple of God," and "showing himself that he is God;" "with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness;" as coming "when the transgressors are come to the full," with or after an "apostasy," and that "from the faith," in a mystery of iniquity which even in the Apostles' day "did already work;" as "prospering till the indignation be accomplished," till "the Lord consume him with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy with the brightness of His coming." Such is the prophecy, as Dr. Todd delineates it; the question is, whether, as he maintains, its fulfilment is yet to come, or whether it has taken place in the person of the Bishop of Rome, as Protestants have very commonly supposed.

Now, one of the first questions which it is natural to ask on entering upon the subject is, whereas the Pope is said to be Antichrist, sometimes from the fourth, sometimes from the seventh century, when was he first detected and denounced, and by whom? In other words, what is the history of that interpretation of prophecy on which Protestants rely? On this point Dr. Todd supplies us with much information, from which it appears that the belief that the Pope was Antichrist was the conclusion gradually formed and matured out of the belief that the Church of Rome was Babylon, by three heretical bodies, between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries, in consequence of their being submitted to persecution for their opinions:

"In the middle of the eleventh century, numerous emigrants {118} from Thrace and the East had established themselves in the north of Italy, and especially in the neighbourhood of Milan; and some, despising a fixed habitation, or unable to obtain one, itinerated throughout various parts of France and Germany. The doctrines of these sects exhibit various shades of extravagance and error, and appear to have had a close affinity with the Oriental Manichees or Paulicians, from whom they are historically descended. They are accused of holding that the material world was the work of an evil being, and not of the Supreme Deity; that the Incarnation and Crucifixion of the Lord were therefore visions, or at least so far unreal events as to be disconnected with matter; that abstinence from flesh and wine was necessary to salvation; that marriage was a carnal state, and inconsistent with Christian perfection. They are said also to have rejected the authority of the Old Testament, as the work of the evil principle; and to have condemned the temporal possessions and rank of the clergy, on the ground that the true Church of Christ should imitate to the letter the poverty of the first Apostles; they despised all external religion, ridiculed the office and powers of the priesthood, the efficacy of the Sacraments, and especially the use of baptism."—Pp. 28-30.

These were the Albigenses, the first of the three independent families of heresy above mentioned.

The second protesting sect which those times produced was, according to Dr. Todd, of a much purer and more respectable character. It originated at the end of the twelfth century, in the celebrated Peter Waldo; was free from the Manichæan errors of the Albigenses and the Paulicians; and, though its members held, at least ultimately, the unlawfulness of oaths, the necessity of poverty, and the inefficacy of the sacraments, yet the innocency of their lives, and their seasonable vehemence against the superstitions of the day, procured them acceptance in almost every part of Europe. Pursuing the line of research which the learned Mr. Maitland has opened, Dr. Todd has brought together a mass of information on this subject, and the notes which stand at the end of {119} his Lectures, form one of the most interesting parts of his work. It would appear from these that the Albigenses founded their opposition to the Church on a Manichæan principle, viz., that, as there was an evil deity, and he the author of the visible world, so was he author also of the visible Church, which in consequence was "the devil's basilica and synagogue of Satan," and, in the language of the Apocalypse, "the mother of fornications." This they maintained; though, as denying our Lord's Incarnation, condemning holy matrimony, and prohibiting meats, they themselves came nearest of all religious parties, then existing, to that prophetic description, which they are at this day supposed by their protest to have fastened upon Rome. The Waldenses, on the other hand, far from participating in these grave errors, seem at first to have differed in no article of faith from the received orthodoxy of the thirteenth century; nay, they were in the habit of disputing against the Albigenses, and that "acutissimè," even after their own separation from the Church. Moreover, far from wishing to separate, they in the first instance attempted to take a place in the Church, such as the Mendicant Friars soon afterwards occupied under the leading of St. Francis and St. Dominic, and applied to the Pope with a view of obtaining his sanction to their rules, and of being permitted to found a religious order. Failing in this, they seceded, and proceeded to denounce the Church of Rome, not on the Manichæan principle, nor exactly on the Protestant, though on one which Protestants have often taken, viz., that the Church or its clergy lost their spiritual powers from the period of their consenting to receive temporal endowments. But, as to any opposition to the Church simply founded on the prophecies in the Apocalypse, of this, Dr. Todd contends, and with great force {120} of argument, there is no trace among them, till after the rise of the last of the three families of heresy aforesaid, to which that opposition really belonged, and of which an account shall now be given in our author's words:

"But although the stream of heresy was thus apparently turned into a less dangerous channel, and made subservient to the ambitious projects of the see of Rome, yet the evil broke out afresh in a new and unexpected form. The Franciscan order, especially, soon split into factions which reproduced all the most fatal errors of the heretics, and set the papal power at defiance. The rule of poverty admitted of laxer or of severer interpretation, and furnished the first great subject of internal division among the brethren of St. Francis. The fanatical opinion also, that the life of St. Francis was an exact imitation of the life of our Lord, and that in him were fulfilled many prophecies, especially in the Apocalypse, soon led to serious evils. The spiritual Franciscans, as they were called, who maintained the absolute illegality of all possessions, under any pretence or fiction whatsoever, were also distinguished for an affectation of prophetical powers, and for peculiar interpretations of the book of Revelation. They insisted {121} that St. Francis was the Angel whom the Apostle had seen in vision flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting Gospel to preach to them that dwell on the earth; and that the mendicant friars of his order were destined, like the Apostles of our Lord, to introduce a new dispensation which should regenerate the Church and the world.

In maintaining these views concerning the Roman communion, the spiritual Franciscans were much indebted to the writings of the Abbot Joachim, the celebrated founder of the Florensian order at the close of the twelfth century, the warm supporter of the Popedom, and the friend of Popes Lucian, Urban, and Clement, and eventually a canonized saint. This is not the place to enter into the discussion of a system of prophetical interpretation, to which much attention has been lately drawn. Its effect upon the Franciscan party will be seen {122} by enumerating some out of the twenty heretical tenets charged upon Olivi, or Peter John, the most remarkable of their writers, according to Dr. Todd, who flourished towards the end of the thirteenth century. Olivi taught, according to Eymericus, that "the rule of the Minor Friars, put forth by St. Francis, is truly and properly that Evangelical rule which Christ observed in His own person, enjoined on the Apostles, and caused to be written in His Gospels; that, as the Synagogue was propagated from twelve Patriarchs, and the Church of the Gentiles from twelve Apostles, so the last Church of the remnant of Jews and Gentiles is to be propagated by means of twelve Evangelical men; whence St. Francis had twelve sons and associates, through whom and in whom was founded and begun the Evangelical order; that the angel Francis will perceive himself to prosper not so much in the carnal Church of the Latins, as in the Greeks, Saracens, Tartars, and, at length, the Jews; that that Church, which we call the universal Church Catholic militant, is a carnal Church, Babylon, the great harlot corrupting herself and all the nations subjected to her with foul carnalities and Simoniacal lusts, and earthly glory of this world; that the Roman Church is that woman, the great harlot, spoken of in the Apocalypse, which once was in the state of paganism, and afterwards in the faith of Christ, which now in many ways has committed fornication with this world."

This is a specimen of the doctrine of the spiritual Franciscans, and, considering how much more it is to the purpose of our ultra-Protestant brethren than that of either Albigenses or Waldenses, we do wonder that Bishop Newton does not include them among the witnesses, "Protestants before even the name came into use," who he conceives have been raised up against the {123} Church of Rome. "Our Saviour," he says, "sent forth His disciples two and two, and it has been observed, that the principal reformers have usually appeared in pairs, as the Waldenses and Albigenses, John Huss and Jerome of Prague, Luther and Calvin, Cranmer and Ridley." Why should not Peter John Olivi pair with the Abbot Joachim? Yet, ungrateful towards those who were the first inventors and propagators of the view adopted by himself, he presently puts forward these Waldenses and Albigenses again, sects which controverted with each other, one orthodox, the other heretical, the one akin to the Begging Friars, the other of the stock of the Manichees, as "the true witnesses, and, as I may say, the Protestants of that age."

Surely it is not without reason that Dr. Todd asks, "Are these the expositors from whom the Church of Christ is to receive the true interpretation of the Prophecies?" and "whose bare assertion that their enemies are the Antichrist is to be received as itself the fulfilment of prophecy, and a proof that 'the time of the end' is arrived?"—P. 34. "These sects," he observes elsewhere, "were for the most part corrupt in doctrine, or ignorant and superstitious in their practice; and ... their denunciations of the Roman Church as the Babylon of Prophecy were the offspring of a spirit very different indeed from that in which we should seek for the true interpretation of a book, of which it is written, 'Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things that are written therein.'"—P. 497.

2.

"Our Protestant forefathers," then, as these unhappy misbelievers have, we believe, with a boldness which we {124} hardly know whether to applaud or to reprobate, sometimes been called, do not themselves shed much lustre upon the doctrine which they originated. However, it is obvious that the more modern witnesses to it are of a much more respectable cast; and its maintainers will not be slow probably in urging this circumstance upon our attention, as a set-off against the disreputable nature of its origin. The Protestant world, it may be said, contains in it multitudes of that high character and intellectual calibre, so learned, so acute, so profound, and so honest, that nothing can stand against the testimony which they bear to the truth of the views of Prophecy which the Albigenses or the Franciscans began. This, then, is the next point to which our attention is naturally called; and here, though we are far of course from presuming to speak disrespectfully of the qualities of mind which Protestant expositors have possessed (to do which would be the extreme of arrogance and ignorance), yet so far is quite clear, that this is a case which has put their learning, acuteness, and other endowments, sorely to task; for a very little examination of the matter will show that they have made some most considerable slips in their treatment of it.

This is a most important circumstance in an inquiry in which so much blind reliance must inevitably be placed by students upon their teacher. There is no department of theology in which ordinary men are more at the mercy of an author than that of prophetical interpretation. Creeds are restraints upon divines, and safeguards to readers, in point of doctrine; moral sense in questions of duty; the text of Scripture itself in direct exposition and comment; the existing form and establishment of religion in matters of discipline and polity; but who shall warrant, and who shall verify, discussions {125} which embrace on the one hand the wide range of history, and necessarily plunge on the other into the subtleties of allegory and poetry, which profess to connect and adjust a field so fertile in facts with a page so recondite in character, and that upon no principles, perhaps, but such as approve themselves to the judgment of the individual interpreter? What a temptation is there under such circumstances for unconscious practising upon the inspired text, or unconscious management of the historical materials? The relative importance of events, their aspect and meaning, the probability of their having occurred, the value of the particular testimony produced, the force of words, the arrangement of dates, these are but a few out of the many matters, in which, from the nature of the case, the personal judgment of the reader is almost excluded, and the dictum of the teacher must be received as law. When then we actually meet with grave and obvious instances of misrepresentation in the statements of certain writers upon Prophecy, and these same repeated from writer to writer, strong suspicion is thrown at once over all such interpretations, which, for what we know, are not better founded than those of which we happen to be able so plainly to discern the unfairness and fallaciousness. These writers are discovered to have taken points for granted, which they had better have examined for themselves, and which turn out to be mistakes, and that in matters of a very sacred character, and involving conclusions most awful towards a great part of the Christian world. Now Mr. Maitland, who is one of the few persons who have undertaken to sift the facts on which the ultra-Protestant interpreters of the Prophecies rely, has at once brought to light so many strange mistakes in their statements as to make a candid reader very suspicious, or, rather, {126} utterly incredulous, of all allegations made on the mere authority of these writers.

What can be thought of the zealous Mr. McNeile, for instance, who has been taught by Bishop Hurd to select for a motto to a sermon, which he publishes under the name of "Antichrist," a passage from St. Bernard, as if in reprobation of the Papacy, to the effect that "that beast of the Apocalypse, to whom is given a mouth speaking blasphemies, occupies the chair of Peter, as a lion ready for the prey"? whereas it turns out that St. Bernard is not speaking of the Pope, but of the Antipope; is defending the Pope against the Antipope Peter Leo, on whose name he is playing when he compares him to a lion, and whose conduct he denotes by the word occupat, which does not mean "occupies," but "seizes," or "usurps."

A second instance occurs in the colour put upon the words of Abbot Joachim by Bishops Hurd and Newton, Mr. McNeile and Mr. Irving, to which Dr. Todd refers in his notes, and Mr. Burgh also in his excellent sermon on Antichrist. These four writers either distinctly state or imply that the Abbot Joachim interpreted of the Pope the passage in 2 Thess. ii., and even the text about the beast in the Apocalypse, whereas he does but say that "Antichrist is born in Rome, and will be elevated to the Apostolic See;" and that, as his system of prophecy proves him to mean, by a usurpation, to the overthrow of the Pope, whose dignity he specifies, because it was the highest which any one could aim at.

Another misstatement which might be mentioned, not so violent, but quite as real, is the common assertion that Pope Gregory the Great asserted that whoever claimed to be Universal Bishop was Antichrist; a statement which, even when corrected so as to be true in the {127} letter, conveys a very incorrect opinion of his meaning to an unlearned reader. St. Gregory says, that "whosoever adopts or desires the title of Universal Priest is the forerunner of Antichrist;" by which he does not mean to assert that Antichrist will be a Universal Bishop, that is, the Pope, as Protestants suppose, but that the affectation of supremacy is the presage of some vast evils near to come, even of the reign of the expected Antichrist. The ancients, ever looking out as they were for the end of all things, and knowing that the coming of Antichrist was to be its immediate sign, as the Apostle had determined, were led to discern in every serious evil which happened to the Church tokens of the coming woe, and called them "forerunners of Antichrist;" as we might speak of "crimes which call down judgment," or "are evidence of divine wrath." Instead of speaking of "crying sins," they spoke of "forerunners of Antichrist." Thus Tertullian, St. Dionysius, and St. Cyprian, consider the heathen persecution as the token of Antichrist. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Athanasius, call the Arian disturbances "the forerunner of Antichrist;" as do also St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Hilary. St. Leo in one place calls Nestorius and Eutyches "forerunners of Antichrist;" in another, persons who resist what the Church has once settled, or who oppose the see of St. Peter. Anastasius speaks of the "ten horns" of the Monophysite heresy as such. And at a later period, Theodorus Studites, writing against the Iconoclasts, considers their proceedings "the apostasy which must first come, the invasion of Antichrist." Pope Gregory then meant doubtless, in the words in question, to denounce a great evil; but is in no respect a witness for the Protestant doctrine concerning Antichrist, unless indeed we are willing to say that by St. {128} Athanasius Arius was considered to be Antichrist, or by St. Leo Eutyches.

Again, to take another instance: Bishop Newton states that the Pope "is styled and pleased to be styled our Lord God the Pope."—Dissert. 22. Now the state of the case, as Mr. Maitland has elicited it, seems at greatest disadvantage to be this: that the words occurred in a gloss of a canonist named Zenzelius, in one, or more than one, edition of the Decretals, and occurred in the course of an argument, the object of which was to prove that the Pope's words were to be obeyed, because, as all law, civil inclusive, they were the decision of God;—that in other editions they did not occur;—and that there is reason to believe that they were erased from that in which they did occur; while it is certain that from ancient times the title Deus has been applied to all bishops, after the pattern of the text quoted by our Lord, "I said ye are Gods." Now we repeat what we have said before, our object is not to defend the Roman Catholics, who must look about them for themselves, but to inquire how facts lie. After such a result of the inquiry in this particular case, what are we to think of a writer like Mr. Edgar, who (in his Varieties of Popery, p. 131, ed. 2), says—

3.

Now it may readily be granted that some of these writers are not possessed of that seriousness and earnestness {129} of mind which entitles them to our respect; but when we consider the character of others, of Mr. McNeile for instance, or Mr. Irving, or others who might be named, it is quite plain that evidences of no common, or rather very uncommon, candour, impartiality, and calmness may fairly be required, before we venture to resign ourselves to an interpreter of prophecy, who, from his particular creed or other cause, is under any special temptation (unconsciously) to distort facts, and to wrest or explain away the Scripture text. If men so eminent, so religious, as some of those who might be named, have not come out of this temptation unscathed, who can hope to overcome it? none surely but those rare specimens of evangelical sanctity which are scattered through the heavens, like stars, each in his turn; none but saints and doctors and confessors, men of sound judgment and well-digested learning, whose sufferings in the cause of truth prove their sincerity, and whose mortified lives are the warrant for their illumination. All of us indeed may edify each other, as in doctrine and precept, so in interpretation of prophecy; viz., by transmitting what we have received from the Church, or by illustrating what is on the surface of Scripture, or by refuting extravagances. But we are speaking of new or further interpretations, whether of the sacred text or of the world's history: and, not at all denying that there is room for these, not at all denying that the new may surpass the old, not denying their desirableness, yet we repeat that no ordinary man can undertake to enunciate them, no man can command our assent, unless he has some portions of that spirit which inspired the prophecy itself. And if this be true generally, what an uncommon man must he be, who is to be our guide in unchurching the greater part of Christendom? {130}

No one can be at a loss to detect a number of feelings and principles which may be present to prejudice sensible and amiable men, or even men of deep intellects, to whom no one would impute that carnal political spirit, or that bitter fanaticism, or that scoffing tone of mind, each of which has in its turn been the fruitful source of interpretations of the Apocalypse. To go no further, even a dutiful temper will lead a writer to say what others of his own party, school, or sect have said before him. He takes for granted their statements, which he has heard from his youth, and repeats them. He has not thrown his mind upon this subject; he has not examined it for himself; hence it does not occur to him to doubt what he has been taught. Endowments, too, have been provided for the inculcation of a particular view of Prophecy; and a writer may be exercising his thoughts under them, and thereby be led to say out what he had hitherto but passively held, and would never otherwise have put into words, though he might profess to hold it. The Warburton Lectures, it is well known, were founded as the words run, "to prove the truth of Revealed Religion in general, and of the Christian in particular, from the completion of the prophecies in the Old and New Testament, which relate to the Christian Church, especially to the apostasy of Papal Rome." It is only surprising that such a foundation has not done more in behalf of its object. In matter of fact, after three lecturers had passed in succession, a fourth could not be found, and for some time there was a suspension of the lecture. Mr. Davison has but one discourse on the subject, and an able and respected writer, whose Lectures have just appeared, does not bestow upon us even one [Note 2].

Again, venerated writers have been stirred up to speak {131} of the bishops of Rome as Antichrist, from the fierce persecuting spirit which these bishops have so often evidenced. Men, who are smarting under injuries inflicted, will naturally view their tormentor in the least favourable light. It was persecution which led the Waldenses to call Rome the Apocalyptic Babylon; and it has been persecution, or the fear of it, which has led much better and more learned men of modern times to call the Pope Antichrist. Moreover, it should be carefully borne in mind, that Protestants will ever feel a strong temptation to this view, by the ease with which it disposes of the plausible and apparently cogent proofs with which Rome fights her battles. No one can deny that the Roman theory is in the abstract most exceedingly specious and persuasive; nor can it be refuted without considerable labour and learning, and an appeal to principles which are not felt to be axioms by ordinary minds, and are deficient in practical persuasiveness. The problem then which lies before the Protestant controversialist is, to find some popular answer to popular and intelligible pretensions, and the position that Papal Rome is Babylon is the "wherefore" to the "why,"—a brief, clear, strong, and simple refutation of them. If once we assume that the Pope is Antichrist, then all the apparent evidences in favour of Rome only become the more convincing evidences of the truth of the assumption with which we start. Antichrist doubtless is to deceive many; he is to bring with him a plausible doctrine; he is to be very like the truth. In consequence, universality, antiquity, claim to miraculous power, sanctity, all the Notes of the Church, become but symptomatic of its being the Synagogue of Satan. Is it far spreading?—The reign of Antichrist was to be over the earth. Is it ancient?—The mystery doth already work, from the Apostles' {132} time downwards. Does it profess the power of doing miracles?—Antichrist is to come with "lying wonders." Is it in appearance holy?—Antichrist is to be Satan transformed into an Angel of light. Has it all these and much more of cumulative evidence in favour of its divine origin? It is a mystery of iniquity. Excellently speaks Mr. McNeile, as quoted by Mr. Burgh:

Again, the Protestant polemic is harassed with questions about the duty of "hearing the Church," about preserving unity, about the patriarchal authority, episcopal grace, long and unbroken tradition, and the weight of synodal decisions. We do not say the claims of Rome on these various grounds may not be separately and satisfactorily met, but that such answers in detail must be abstruse, circuitous, and ineffective; on the contrary, when the simple principle is once mastered that the Pope is Antichrist, nothing more is necessary in the controversy. It answers to the dogma of the Pope's infallibility in the Roman system. A bold, forcible, decisive argument is taken, intelligible to the meanest capacity; it is a tactic which puts an end to skirmishing, manœuvring and desultory warfare. A Church can have no rights which has ceased to be a Church. Thus surely it was that Luther made progress, not by appeals to the Fathers, not by reasonings on the nature of the case, not {133} by elaborate deductions from Scripture, but by positions venturous, striking, stamped with originality, and suited even to the ignorant,—that we are justified by the sole instrumentality of faith, that our best works are sins, that assurance is possession, and, among these, that the Pope is Antichrist. The advantage of this mode of warfare is pointed out with much naïveté, and not less truth, by a controversialist, whose words we quote from a periodical, in which we find them.

This writer certainly puts the advantage of calling Christian Rome Babylon in a clear point of view.

4.

But more may be said on this subject; we just now hinted that mere honesty, and impartiality, and talent, are not enough for an interpreter of these awful prophecies, but qualities are needed for him more akin to those {134} possessed by the inspired writers themselves. Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John, the three prophets of the last days, are also saints. We do not see what good could come to theology from the expositions of the Manichees or the Fratricelli of the middle ages; no, nor in later times from attendants on Walpole or Pelham, or frequenters of the back-stairs at St. James's. Mere decency of life is not a candle bright enough to read withal holy Apostles or the "man greatly beloved;" and much more when the matter taken in hand is no less than that of unchurching the greater part of Christendom. A man must be almost an Angel, to stand forth to teach us that the great multitude of Christian bishops are children of the devil. And if he is not an Angel, then he has to show that he himself is not of the family of him who is emphatically, we are told, the "accuser of the brethren." Who, indeed, but the like of ascetic Daniel, much-suffering Paul, and contemplative John, will suffice to establish the paradox that Carlo Borromeo sucked the breast of Babylon, and that Pascal died in her arms? Now, let a candid Protestant decide: is he prepared to match Warburton, Newton, or Hurd, against, we will not say these saints of Scripture, but even against the saints of degenerate Rome? Is he prepared to sit in judgment on such men as have been named, with nothing better than Newton for our saint, doctor, bishop, and confessor? What is there to command respect in Newton's life and character, what to command confidence in his intellectual or moral illumination?

Now we are going to commit what may seem an invidious act, to appeal to the private life of a respectable and amiable man. His Dissertations on the Prophecies, however, are the main source, we suppose, of that anti-Roman opinion on the subject of Antichrist, now afloat {135} among us, as far as men have an opinion; and if we venture to speak hardly against him, it is only to prevent his being believed, when he speaks hardly of his betters. His work, on its first appearance, went through six large editions in the course of thirty years, and was translated into German and Danish. Its influence has undoubtedly been great: let us then see what its author was worth; and this we are enabled to do from the circumstance of his having also bequeathed to the world an Autobiography, never to be forgotten. It was written with a winning gentleness and calmness; but some extracts will soon decide for us whether he had much of insight into the spiritual world. Surely an author who charged the greater part of Christendom with satanical error, has no right to complain of being convicted out of his own mouth of a secular spirit.

"In the first year of the king's reign," he says, "there was a remarkable mortality among the great bishops: Hoadly, of Winchester, who died April 17; Sherlock, of London, who died July 18; and Gilbert, of York, who died August 9, all in the year 1761. Dr. Newton" [this is the writer himself] "had the honour of being in some measure known to the Earl of Bute, having baptized one or two of his children, and having sometimes met him at Leicester House, when as chaplain he had been in attendance upon the Princess of Wales. He had also presented to him the three volumes of his Dissertations on the Prophecies, having obtained the favour of his lordship to present them to the Prince of Wales. Upon the death of Bishop Sherlock, Lord Bute told a noble lord, a particular friend of Dr. Newton's, that he would certainly be the new bishop, and would be obliged to no minister for his promotion: it was entirely the doing of the king himself and the Princess of Wales ... He" [the Duke of Newcastle] "had been so long used to shuffle and cut the cards, that he well knew how to pack them in such a manner as to have the honours" [for instance, the see of London] "dealt to his particular friends; and on the day when they were all appointed to kiss the king's hand, Drummond for York, Hayter for London, Thomas for Salisbury, Yonge for Norwich, {136} and Green for Lincoln, Newton, who was to succeed Yonge in the bishopric of Bristol and residentiariship of St. Paul's, had no notice sent him from the office as the rest had; so much less regard was paid to the king's nomination than to the minister's. He was in some doubt whether he ought to go to court; but being persuaded to go, he met the Duke of Newcastle upon the great stairs, and asked him whether he was in the right, whether he was come for any good purpose. Aye, aye, said the duke, you are right, go on and prosper; and the same was confirmed to him above stairs by Mr. Jenkinson, who was then Lord Bute's secretary … The Bishop of Bristol" [himself] "was no great gainer by preferment; for he was obliged to give up the prebend of Westminster, the precentorship of York, the lectureship of St. George's Hanover Square, and the genteel office of sub-almoner; but, however, he was rather better pleased with his little bishopric and the residentiariship of St. Paul's, than he would have been with the large and extensive and laborious diocese of Lincoln, for which his friend was in all respects much better qualified. St. Paul's had always been the object of his wish, and he used to say that if he could get into Amen Corner, he should arrive at the end of his prayers. 'Hoc erat in votis,' but 'Dii melius fecere.'"—Life, pp. 112-115.

Or take another anecdote of an earlier date:

"When he waited upon the archbishop" [Gilbert, of York,] "at Kew, his grace further informed him that among other things the king had said, that, though he had no reason to find fault with the length of Dr. Newton's sermons, yet, as he would now preach oftener before him, he must desire that he would be particularly short, especially on the great festivals, for he was an old man, and if the sermon was long he was in danger of falling asleep and catching cold, and it would fatigue him too much, especially on those days when he was afterwards to come down into the chapel to receive the Sacrament. The doctor" [himself] "had before taken care in his sermons at court to come within the compass of twenty minutes, but after this, especially on the great festivals, he never exceeded fifteen, so that the king sometimes said to the clerk of the closet, a short good sermon. But Archbishop Gilbert's favours did not stop here. The Archbishop of York is not a very good patron, but he gave him one of the most valuable pieces of preferment in the church of York, the precentorship which he held till he was promoted to a bishopric, etc., etc."—Pp. 104, 105. {137}

In a like spirit, he tells us of the mastership of the Charter House, that Bishop Benson and Dr. Jortin used to say that there was a certain time of their lives, when of all preferments they wished for it the most.—P. 32. Speaking of his own residence in Lord Carpenter's family, he says that, "Here he" (that is himself) "stuck some time without any promotion ... he waited often upon the bishop," of Durham, "and sat with him an hour or two in the evening, and often dined with him on a Sunday;" and he adds that, though the bishop continued in his see about twenty years, "yet in all that time he bestowed no preferment upon this young man, of whose company he seemed so desirous," p. 41; he says that "Mrs. Devenish, like a true friend, took every opportunity of commending him to" the Prince and Princess of Wales, "and leaving a good impression of his character, which long after was of great service to him, and may be said to be the groundwork of his best preferment," and that she also "first introduced him to the acquaintance of Lord Bath," two introductions which "he ever esteemed as two of the most fortunate circumstances, the most happy incidents in all his life."—P. 45. He tells us, moreover, that the rectory of St. Mary-le-Bow, to which he was afterwards preferred through the interest of Lord Bath, though he was forty years old before he obtained any living, "was likewise esteemed a fortunate living, the two former rectors, Dr. Lisle and Dr. Blandford, having been made bishops," pp. 72, 73; that "the bishopric, which of all others" Dr. Pearce "most desired was Peterborough, but Providence saw fit to dispose of matters otherwise, and sent him further to a better bishopric,—to Bangor."—P. 79.

Moreover, as if to give us some further insight into his character, he informs us that "as long as Dr. Trebeck {138} lived, Dr. Newton continued to board with his family, from his old principle of avoiding as much as possible the trouble of housekeeping; but the breaking up of the family naturally engaged him to think seriously again of matrimony; for he found the study of sacred and classic authors ill agreed with accounts of butchers' and bakers' bills, and by daily experience he was convinced more and more that it was not good for man to live alone without an help meet for him." "And especially," he continues, "when he had some prospect of a bishopric, fresh difficulties and troubles opened to his view; there would be a better table and public days to be kept; and he plainly foresaw that he must either fall a prey to servants or must look out for some clever sensible woman to be his wife, who had some knowledge and experience of the world, who was a prudent manager, who could do the honours of his table in a becoming manner, who had no more taste and love of pleasure than a reasonable woman should have, who would be happier in staying with her husband at home than in perpetually gadding abroad, would be careful and tender of his health, and in short be a friend and companion of all hours."—Pp. 110, 111. He was at this time fifty-seven, and "it was happy for him," he adds, "that such a woman was in his eye," one whom "he had known from a little child in a white frock, and had observed her through all the parts of her life."

Assuredly there is nothing high in all this; of Newton's kindness of heart and amiableness we have no doubt at all; but a man so idolatrous of comfort, so liquorish of preferment, whose most fervent aspiration apparently was that he might ride in a carriage and sleep on down, whose keenest sorrow that he could not get a second appointment without relinquishing the first, who cast a regretful {139} look back upon his dinner while he was at supper, and anticipated his morning chocolate in his evening muffins, who will say that this is the man, not merely to unchurch, but to smite, to ban, to wither the whole of Christendom for many centuries, and the greater part of it even in his own day, if not, as we shall presently show to be the case, indirectly his own branch also. Nay, he does not spare even the Church of the Nicene era, for while he maintains that the monks "revived and promoted the worship of demons," and either out of credulity or for worse reasons recommended it to the people with all the pomp and power of their eloquence in their homilies and orations, he refers to "some of the most celebrated fathers," St. Basil, St. Ephrem, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory Nyssen, and St. Chrysostom, as being "full of this sort of superstition;" and, he adds, "all these were monks, and most of them bishops too; the monks, these were the principal promoters of the worship of the dead in former times;—and who are the great patrons and advocates of the same worship now? Are not their legitimate successors and descendants, the monks, and priests, and bishops of the Church of Rome?"—Dissert. 23. Now, if this be so, if Chrysostom, Basil, and the rest, were but monks and bishops, one is tempted to ask what was Thomas Newton? Not a monk certainly, but a bishop, and such a bishop as felt thankful that his diocese did not give him much trouble, and thereby resigned himself to the loss of more eminent dignities. Is this the man to sit in judgment on Chrysostom? is he the man to be trusted rather than Chrysostom? To which of the two do the souls of men owe the more? which was the more zealous preacher? which resisted luxury and mammon more boldly? which was more like St. John the Baptist in a royal court? Let us know then {140} where we are to find ourselves if we are to interpret prophecy on this rule; will it be pleasant to have exchanged St Chrysostom for Newton, or St Basil for Warburton? Is this good company to live and die in? Who would not rather be found even with Whitfield and Wesley, than with ecclesiastics whose life is literary ease at the best, whose highest flights attain but to Downing Street or the levee?

5.

We are engaged in a very invidious task; but still, since we have begun it, we wish to go through with it by submitting to the reader some notice of certain persons whom Newton's theory cuts off from the hope of salvation. And first let us consider the life and character of that limb of Antichrist, as Newton must think him, Carlo Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal of the Roman Church, and nephew to Pope Pius IV. For this purpose we make use of the valuable work of Mr. Palmer. It seems that, when he came to reside at Milan, he voluntarily resigned benefices and estates to the value of 80,000 crowns per annum, reserving only an income of 20,000 crowns. The principality of Oria, which had become his property by the death of his brother, he sold for 40,000 crowns, which he commanded his almoners to distribute among the poor and the hospitals. When the list which the almoners showed him for the distribution amounted, by mistake, to 2,000 crowns more, Carlo said the mistake was too much to the advantage of the poor to be corrected, and the whole was accordingly distributed. When his brother died, he also caused all the rich furniture and jewels of the family to be sold, and gave the price, which amounted to 30,000 crowns, to the poor. Several other cases of charity, on an equally large scale, {141} might be added. His chief almoner was ordered to distribute among the poor of Milan, of whom he kept an exact list, 200 crowns every month; Carlo would never permit any beggar to be dismissed without some alms, whatever he was. He was exceedingly hospitable and liberal in entertaining princes, prelates, and strangers of all ranks, but always without luxury; and he endeavoured as much as possible to conceal his own abstemiousness. His religious foundations, his repairs of churches, of the dwellings of the clergy, and of the seminaries of learning, not only at Milan but at Bologna, Rome, and many other places, were on the most magnificent scale of liberality.

He found his diocese in extreme disorder. The great truths of salvation were little known or understood; and religious practices were profaned by the grossest abuses, and disfigured by superstitions. The sacraments were neglected; the clergy seem scarcely to have known how to administer them, and were slothful, ignorant, and depraved. The monasteries too were in a scandalous condition. Carlo instituted seminaries for the instruction of the clergy; appointed a number of vicars, or rural deans, who exercised a vigilant superintendence over every part of his diocese; and held many provincial and diocesan synods, in which the most excellent and judicious regulations were made and enforced with inflexible firmness. In the course of his proceedings he frequently encountered the most violent opposition from those who were unwilling to be corrected. The order of monks called Humiliati were particularly irritated by his labours for their reform, and excited against him one of their members, who actually fired a musket at the archbishop, as he was one evening at prayers. Carlo calmly finished his prayers, though the ball had struck his vestment, and {142} then, with truly Christian charity, forgave the assassin, and even solicited his pardon. But justice took its course, and the order was suppressed by the Pope.

Carlo divided the revenue of his see into three parts; one of which was appropriated to his household, another to the poor, and a third to the repairs of churches: and it was his custom to lay before the Provincial Councils the accounts of his revenues to the last farthing, saying that he was no more than an administrator or steward. He employed no clergy of his own kin in the government of his diocese; nor did he make over to them any of the benefices which had been conferred on him.

"It was one of his greatest pleasures," continues Mr. Palmer, "to converse with and catechise the poor; and he would often visit them in the wildest and most mountainous parts of his diocese. On one occasion while he was engaged in his visitation, the Bishop of Ferrara, coming to meet him, found him lying under a fit of ague on a coarse bed, and in a very poor cottage. Borromeo, observing his surprise, remarked, 'that he was treated very well, and much better than he deserved.' During the dreadful ravages of a pestilence, this excellent man encouraged his clergy to administer the consolations of religion to the sick and dying, and he was himself assiduous in the performance of this dangerous duty." On this occasion he sold all his furniture to procure medicine and nourishment for the unhappy sufferers. He was careful not to lose a moment of his time; even at table he listened to some pious book, or dictated letters or instructions. He was remarkable for sincerity; it appeared in all his words and actions; and his promises were inviolable. He delighted in prayer, to which he gave a large part of his time; and he never said any prayer or performed any religious office with {143} precipitation, whatever business of importance might be on his hands, or however he might be pressed for time. In giving audience and in the greatest hurry of business his countenance, his modesty, and all his words, showed that he was full of the recollection of God. "His spirit of prayer and the love of God which filled his heart gave to him remarkably the power of exciting and encouraging others to religion. A short address, even a single word or action, sometimes produced the most powerful effects in animating his clergy to repentance and to virtue.

"This great and good man died in 1584, in the forty-seventh year of his age; with the same piety and sanctity which adorned his short but admirable life."—Church History, pp. 226-229.

Or what would Bishop Newton say to that other great saint whose life Mr. Palmer sketches, St. Francis de Sales?

"He was much respected by Beza and the rest of the Reformed in Switzerland; and the excellence of his own character, and the piety and meekness which he always evinced, probably did more for his cause than any other arguments by which it was sustained. The plague at one time raged violently in the place where he resided, but this did not deter him from assisting the sick in their last moments by day and night; and he was wonderfully preserved in the pestilence, which carried off several of the clergy who aided him. In 1599 he became coadjutor of the Bishop of Annecy, with the right of succession to that see; and soon after he was obliged to go to France, where he was received by all ranks and classes with the utmost distinction. He preached before the king, who endeavoured to detain him in France by promises of a large pension and of the first vacant bishopric: but Francis de Sales declined all these offers, and, returning to the poor bishopric of Annecy, was soon after, on the death of his predecessor, consecrated its pastor in 1602. He now laid down a plan of life, to which he ever after rigorously adhered. He resolved to wear no expensive clothing; to have no paintings except of a devotional character in his house; {144} to possess no splendid furniture; to use no coach or carriage, but make his visitations on foot. His family was to consist of two priests, one to act as his chaplain, the other to superintend his servants and temporalities; his table to be plain and frugal. He resolved to be present at all religious and devotional meetings and festivals in the churches; to distribute abundant alms; to visit the sick and poor in prison; to rise every day at four, meditate for an hour, read private service, then prayers with his family, then to read the Scriptures, celebrate the holy eucharist, and afterwards apply to business till dinner. He then gave an hour to conversation, and the remainder of the afternoon to business and prayer. After supper he read a pious book to his family for an hour, then prayed with them, and retired to his private devotions and to rest. Such was the general mode of life of this excellent man.

The disinterested spirit which he had early manifested always continued. When he was solicited by Henry IV., king of France, to accept an abbey of large income, he refused it, saying, "that he dreaded riches as much as others desired them; and that the less he had of them the less he should have to answer for." The same prince offered to name him for the dignity of cardinal at the next promotion; but he replied that, though he did not despise the proffered dignity he was persuaded that great titles did not suit him, and might raise new obstacles to his salvation. His conscientious firmness was also remarkable. On one occasion the parliament {145} of Chambery, in Savoy, seized his temporalities for refusing, at its desire, to publish an ecclesiastical censure which he thought uncalled-for by the circumstances of the case. When he heard of the seizure of his possessions, he said that he thanked God for teaching him by it, "that a bishop is altogether spiritual." He did not desist from preaching, or apply to the sovereign for redress; but behaved in so kind and friendly a manner to those who had insulted him most grossly, that at length the parliament became ashamed of its proceedings, and restored his temporalities. In 1619, while he was in Paris, he preached a course of Lent Sermons, which, aided by his conferences, the example of his holy life, and the sweetness of his discourse, most powerfully moved, not only the devout, but even libertines and atheists. He was entreated, for the sake of his health, not to preach twice in the day. He replied, with a smile, "that it cost him much less to preach a sermon than to find an excuse for himself when invited to perform that office. God had appointed him to be a pastor and a preacher, and ought not every one to follow his profession?" "On one occasion," says Mr. Palmer, "seeing a vicious and scandalous priest thrown into prison, he fell at his feet, and with tears conjured him to have compassion on him his pastor, on religion which he scandalized, and on his own soul. The man was so deeply impressed with his conduct, that he was entirely converted, and became a virtuous man from that moment."

6.

Here the reader may be tempted to exclaim, "All this is unfair and a fallacy. It is a fallacy to contrast Newton with Chrysostom or Borromeo; it is to take a bad specimen of a good system and a good specimen {146} of a bad one. How does it prove that the Protestant system is bad or the Roman good, because holy men have been not of, but in, the latter, and sycophants or worldlings in, though not of, the former?" Now such an objection is founded on a misapprehension of the state of the case; and to show this will carry us on to a further remark to which we wish to direct attention. The truth is, that when people so freely call Rome Babylon and the Pope Antichrist, they know not what they are saying and whither they are going. They think to make exceptions; they think to confine their imputation of corruption and apostasy within bounds; they think, on the one hand, to except Bernard or Fenelon, and to keep clear of their own Church on the other. On the latter point something more presently; here we do but observe in answer to that wish to make exceptions, which the objection, as we have stated it, involves, that it is directly in opposition to the plain letter of Scripture. If the bishop of Rome be "the man of sin, the son of perdition, the lawless one," what are those who receive and submit to him? Hear the Apostle's description of them: "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, that they all might be damned who believed not in the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." But it may be said that if Papists have the love of the truth, they are not involved in the ruin of Antichrist;—rather surely we ought to say, since Papists may have the love of the truth, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. Followers of Antichrist are in the above text described as utterly lost; which Papists, it seems, need not be. However, let us suppose this text of doubtful cogency; what will be said of the following?—"He opened his {147} mouth to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven; and power was given him over all kindreds and tongues and nations, and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life." Now who could be said to worship the Pope, if Borromeo and Fenelon did not; Fenelon who implicitly resigned his private judgment to him; Borromeo, a Pope's nephew, who was especially employed by him in the composition of the Catechism of Trent? However, it may be said, captiously as we think, that, though all whose names are not written do worship him, still (if so be) some whose names are written may worship him also. Must then the screw be driven tighter still?—then listen. "If any man worship the beast, and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand," (and we are told shortly before that "he caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads,") the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb, and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

We entreat indulgence of serious minds for quoting such very awful words in a composition of this kind; but it is most necessary to bring before all thinking men the real state of the case, and respectfully and anxiously to warn them what they are doing, when they so confidently and solemnly pronounce Christian Rome to be Babylon. Do they know what they say? do they really {148} resign themselves in faith, as they profess to do, to the sovereign word of God as they interpret it? Do they in faith make over the millions upon millions now and in former times who have been in subjection to the Roman See to utter and hopeless perdition? Do they in very truth look upon them as the direct and open enemies of God, and children of Satan? Then surely they ought to show this much more in acts, in the fruits of such faith, than even the most zealous of them have adopted; then is mere exclusion of Romanists from political power a very poor and miserable way of separating themselves from the kingdom of Satan. If even heresy stops the channels of sacramental grace, if there are degrees of moral corruption which bid fair to destroy the being of a Church and annul even the most canonical Succession, if we are to shun and abhor those in whom the prince of this world works, what ought to be our acts and our feelings towards the embodied idea of rebellion and pride, towards him who is pure evil, who is to be revealed as the son of perdition, and who is destined from the beginning for divine wasting and destruction? How any thoughtful person can hold, though we know there are very thoughtful persons who do, that any one can be in communion with Antichrist without partaking of his plagues, or that to receive Orders from him is not an act of communion with him in those who receive those Orders, or that they who transmitted to us our Orders from Rome could give the Orders without the plagues;—or again, how men can conceive that the English Church can recognize the Orders of a Roman priest on his coming over to it, and yet hold that he gained them from Babylon,—or how men, thinking that the Pope is the Beast of the Apocalypse, can endure the sight of any of {149} his servants, can join in distributing the Bible with them, or can sit with them in the same Council or Parliament, or can do business with them, buy and sell, trade and traffic, or can gaze upon and admire the architecture of churches built by Antichrist, or make much of his pictures,—or how they can read any book of his servants, Pascal's "Thoughts" or Kempis's "Imitation of Christ,"—or works of theology, as those of the Benedictines, Tillemont, or Fleury,—or even school books, Delphin classics, or Gradus ad Parnassum,—or how they can go abroad into Roman Catholic countries without necessity, prying into their churches and gazing on their processions;—all this is to us inexplicable. "What fellowship," as the Apostle asks, "hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the Temple of God with idols?" Or in the words of another Apostle, to which Dr. Todd refers, p. 321, "doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig-tree bear olive-berries? either a vine figs?" What then is there in Antichrist that we can admire or take interest in?

This surely is a principle which comes home to us, and approves itself both to our feelings and judgments. If Englishmen, as is certain, do not start with abhorrence from the members of the Church of Rome, surely this is a clear proof that they do not really account Rome to be Babylon, though they may seem to affirm it. We are surely fighting with a shadow; there is no difficulty here; those who denounce Rome and its bishops do not mean what they say. They do not mean to say that this Pope and that Pope are utterly and hopelessly lost beyond the power of repentance: they do not mean that {150} to hold communion with him is to be involved in his plagues. They may say so in their closets; they do not say so, in proportion as they come into contact with those whom they denounce. They keep their ground, as far as their insular position has hold upon them; but they do give way, just so far as they cease to be islanders. This then, after all, is what thoughtful persons mean when they call Rome the seat of Antichrist,—nothing more than that it has the spirit of Antichrist in it; not that it is bodily God's enemy, but that it has in it Satanical principles. And then perhaps in process of time they go on to the further doctrine, that these same bad principles are also, though not of course in the same degree, in Protestant countries and Protestant systems of doctrine. But all this is to give up the point in dispute, for either the Popes come up to the full stature of Antichrist, or we must look for Antichrist elsewhere. This is what Dr. Todd has remarked in his Discourses:—

Continue

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Note

1. The distich, framed at the time of the Reformation by one of the extreme Protestant party, was this:

Return to text

2. [Archdeacon Lyall.]
Return to text

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.