first, or, the _Great_, as he is usually called, the most revered, and
in some respects not undeservedly so, of all the Roman pontifs, in a
famous dispute with the Bishop of Constantinople, who had taken to
himself the title of _Oecumenical_, or Universal Bishop, objects to
him, the arrogance and presumption of this claim, and treats him, on
that account, as the fore-runner, at least, of Antichrist. His words
are remarkable enough to be here quoted. _I affirm it confidently_,
says He, _that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop, or is desirous
to be so called, demonstrates himself, by this pride and elation of
heart, to be the fore-runner of Antichrist_[121]. And, again, _From
this presumption of his_ [in taking the name of Universal Bishop] _what
else can be collected, but that the times of Antichrist are now at
hand_[122]?
It is to be observed of this Gregory, that he disclaimed, for himself,
the title of Universal Bishop, as well as refused it to his aspiring
brother of Constantinople. How consistently he did this, when at the
same time, he exercised an authority, which can only belong to that
exalted character, it is not my business to inquire. Perhaps, he did
not advert to the consequence of his own actions: perhaps, like an able
man, he meant to secure the thing, without troubling himself about the
name: perhaps, he was jealous of a rival to this claim of catholic
authority, and would not permit the Bishop of Constantinople to
decorate himself with a title, which was likely to be favourable to the
pretensions of that see, and injurious to his own. Whatever the reasons
of his conduct were, the _fact_ is, as I here represent it; and clearly
shews that, in the judgment of this renowned Roman Bishop, Antichrist
had not yet been revealed in the person of the Roman Emperor; and if
ever he were to be revealed, that not a civil, but ecclesiastical
character, agreed best with the prophetic descriptions of him[123].
2. Pope Boniface III. had not, it seems, the scruples, whatever they
were, of his predecessor, Gregory. He readily accepted, or rather
importunately begged, this proud title of _Oecumenical Bishop_, from
the Emperor, Phocas; and transmitted it to all his successors. And now,
it might be expected, that the Bishop of Rome would be Antichrist, in
his turn. But, such was the fortune of that see, or the devotion of the
faithful to it, that this charge was not presently brought against him:
as if the spirit of dominion, which had so long possessed that city,
were a thing of course, and could not misbecome the Bishop of Rome,
though it looked so _Antichristian_ in him of Constantinople.
Other reasons concurred to save the honour of the papal chair. Its
authority grew, every day, more absolute: and the tradition of the
church (which had hitherto been the chief support of the doctrine
concerning Antichrist) gradually sunk under the apprehension of that
power, to which alone it could, with any apparent propriety, be
applied: while the ignorance of the times became such, that, except
perhaps in the minds of some few retainers to the see of Rome, there
was scarce light enough left in the Christian world to point out
the meaning of the prophecies; if its gross superstition would have
otherwise permitted the application of them to the sacred person of the
Pope.
3. Under the cover of all these advantages, _the Man of Sin_ had
a convenient time to display himself, and to grow up into that
full size and stature, in which he could no longer be overlooked,
or mistaken, by those who had any knowledge of the prophecies, or
skill in applying them. Accordingly we find that at the synod of
Rheims, held in the Xth century[124], Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans,
appealed to the whole council, whether the Bishop of Rome were not
the Antichrist of the prophets; _sitting in the temple of God_; and
perfectly corresponding to the marks, which St. Paul had given of
him. In particular, speaking of John the XVth, who then governed the
church of Rome, he apostrophized the assembly in these words—“What
think ye, reverend Fathers, of this man, seated on a lofty throne, and
shining in purple and gold? Whom do ye account him to be? Surely, if
destitute of charity, and puffed up with the pride of science only, He
is ANTICHRIST, _sitting in the temple of God, and shewing himself that
he is God_[125].”
4. In the former part of the XIth century, Berengarius, a man of
principal note in those days, and distinguished by his free writings
concerning the Eucharist, went so far as to call the church of
Rome, _the seat of Satan_ (which is but another apocalyptic name of
Antichrist); and to know from what source he derived this language,
we need only reflect, that, in the catalogue of his works, we find a
treatise written by him expressly on the book of Revelations[126].
As this century advanced, the papal power rose to its height. And
all the characters of Antichrist glared so strongly in the person
of Hildebrand, who took the name of Gregory VIIth, that the Romish
historian, Joannes Aventinus, speaks of it as a point, _in which the
generality of fair, candid, and ingenuous writers, were agreed, That_
THEN _began the empire of Antichrist_[127].
5. Pascal II, who had been brought up at the feet of Hildebrand, and
sate upon the papal throne in the beginning of the XIIth century, was
treated with as little ceremony, as his master had been; particularly,
by Fluentius, Bishop of Florence, and by the whole church of Liege[128].
St. Bernard, too, the most eminent person of that age, was so struck
with the marks of Antichristianism in the church of Rome (to which,
however, in other respects, he was enough devoted) that he employed all
the thunder of his rhetoric (in which faculty he excelled) against its
corruptions; exclaiming, _that the ministers of Christ were become the
servants of Antichrist; and that the beast of the Apocalypse had seated
himself in the chair of St. Peter_[129].
But this charge was now so general, and sounded so high, that it
reached the ears of _others_, besides prelates, and churchmen.
Historians relate, that it made an impression on our military king,
Richard I.; who, being at Messina in Sicily, in his way to the Holy
Land, and hearing much of the learned Abbot Joachim of Calabria, (a
man, famous in those times for his warm invectives against the Roman
hierarchy;) had the curiosity to take a lecture from him on this
subject. His text was, _Antichrist_, and the _Apocalypse_; which he
explained in so pointed and forcible a manner, as was much to the
satisfaction, we are told, of his royal auditor[130].
6. The first appearance of the people, called Waldenses or Albigenses,
was in this age; but, in the next, the XIIIth century, they prevailed
to that degree, that Crusades and Inquisitions were thought little
enough to be employed against them. We may know what the guilt of this
people was, when we understand from their books, and from the testimony
of the great historian, Thuanus, that a leading principle of their
heresy was, To treat the Pope as _Antichrist_; and the church of Rome,
as _Babylon_; on the authority of the prophecies contained in the
Revelation[131].
Other[132] testimonies occur in the history of this age. But I must
not omit that of our famous historian, Matthew Paris; who hath taken
care to inform us, that his contemporary, Robert Grostête, Bishop of
Lincoln, the most considerable of all the English bishops, and equally
renowned for his affection to civil and religious liberty, was so much
in earnest in fixing this charge on the see of Rome, that, as it had
been the common theme of his meditations during life, so it occupied
his dying moments; the _Pope_, and _Antichrist_, being, as he tells us,
among the last words of this zealous prelate[133].
7. The XIVth century affords many authorities in point; among which the
immortal names of Dante[134] and Petrarch[135] are commonly cited.
But the example of our Wicklif, who adorned that age, is most to our
purpose, and may excuse the mention of any other. This extraordinary
man saw far into all the abuses of his time: but he had nothing more at
heart, than to expose the _Antichristianism_ of the Roman Pontif[136].
8. Still, as the times grew more enlightened, the controversy
concerning Antichrist became more general and important. The writings
of Wicklif had great effects both at home, and abroad; and, with other
causes, contributed very much to the cultivation of free enquiry, and
to the improvement of all useful knowledge, in the XVth century. The
church of Rome was pushed vigorously on all sides; and, in her turn,
omitted no means of self-defence. That the _worst_ were not scrupled,
may be seen by what passed in England at that time, as well as by the
sanguinary and faithless proceedings at the council of Constance. Lord
Cobham, and the two Bohemian martyrs, were committed to the flames, for
nothing so much, as for asserting the impious doctrine, ‘That the Pope
was Antichrist.’
9. We now enter on the XVIth century; distinguished in the annals of
mankind by that great event, The Reformation of long oppressed and much
adulterated religion. The Christian world had slumbered in its chains,
for full ten ages. But Liberty came at last—
_Libertas, quæ sera tamen respexit_ INERTEM.
This important work was begun, and prosecuted, on the common principle,
That the bishop of Rome was Antichrist: and the great separation from
the church of Rome, was every where justified on the idea, That Rome
was the Babylon of the Revelation; and that Christians were bound by an
express command in those prophecies, to _come out of her_ communion.
Leo X. was thunder-struck with this cry, which resounded on all sides;
and, in the last Lateran council, gave it in charge to all preachers,
that none of them should presume to call the Pope, Antichrist, or to
treat this obnoxious subject in their discourses to the people[137].
But his edict came too late. The notion had taken deep root in the
minds of men; and the name of Antichrist, as applied to the Pope, was
current in all quarters.
10. From this time to the present, _the charge of Antichristianism_
against the church of Rome is to be regarded, not as the language of
private men, or particular synods; but as the common voice of the whole
Protestant world: so that it will be needless to bring down the history
of it any lower.
THIS DEDUCTION, though made with all possible brevity, hath held us so
long, that I have but time for one or two short reflexions upon it.
1. _First_, It may seem probable from the general prevalence of this
opinion, in all the periods of the Christian church, that it must needs
have some solid ground in the scriptural prophecies: it not being
otherwise conceivable, that it should spread so far, and continue so
long; or that the more enlightened, as well as barbarous ages should
concur in the profession of it.
2. _Secondly_, from the catalogue of illustrious names, here produced,
and from the singular stress, which all Protestant churches to this
day have ever laid on this principle, we may see the importance of the
general question. The papal divines have an evident reason for treating
it with contempt. The men of thought and inquiry, who speculate within
the Roman communion, may be restrained by considerations of fear or
decency, from joining[138] in this invidious charge against the head
of their church. But for any, that profess Christianity, and call
themselves Protestants, to make light of inquiries into the prophecies
concerning Antichrist, and to manifest a scorn of all attempts to apply
them in the way, in which they have so generally, and with such effect
been applied, is a sort of conduct, which will not so readily find an
excuse, much less a justification.
3. _Lastly_, whatever becomes of the _truth_, or _importance_ of the
doctrine, the _antiquity_ of it is not to be disputed. For we are
authorised to affirm, on the most certain grounds of history, that a
Roman power, commonly called Antichrist, was expected to arise in _the
latter times_, by the primitive Christians; and that the Imperial, was
not deemed to be that power, so long as it subsisted. It is, further,
unquestionable that not the Emperor, but the Bishop or Church of Rome,
was afterwards thought entitled to the name of Antichrist by many
persons of that communion, for several successive centuries, previous
to the æra of the Reformation.
These facts should abate the wonder, at least, which some express at
hearing the names of the _Pope_ and _Antichrist_ pronounced together.
They must surely convince every man, that this language, whatever
foundation it may, or may not have, in the prophecies, is not taken
up without precedents and authorities; and that the notion, conveyed
by it, is not a conceit of yesterday, which sprung out of recent
prejudices, and novel interpretations. This, I say, is a conclusion
which every man must draw from the premises, laid down in this
discourse: and this, for the present, is the main use I would request
you to make of those premises.
SERMON VIII.
PREJUDICES AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF ANTICHRIST.
1 EP. JOHN ii. 18.
—_Ye have heared that Antichrist shall come_—
One of the principal prejudices against the doctrine of Antichrist,
as understood and applied by Protestant divines, arises out of a
circumstance, which was just touched in the close of my last discourse,
and is of importance enough to be now resumed and more particularly
considered.
I. It is well known that, when the Reformation was set on foot in the
sixteenth century, this great work was every where justified and
conducted on the general principle, “That the Pope, or at least the
church of Rome, was Antichrist.”
“Now men of sense, who have looked no farther into the subject, and yet
remember, as they easily may, the bitterness, the policy, the fraud,
too commonly observable in the conduct of religious (as of other)
parties, easily fall into the suspicion, That this cry of Antichrist
was only an artifice of the time, or at least an extravagance of it;
when the minds of men were intensely heated against each other, and
when of course no arms would be refused, that might serve to annoy or
distress the enemy.
In these circumstances, it was natural enough, it will be said, for
angry men to _see_ that in the prophecies which was not contained in
them; or for designing men to _feign_ that which they did not see; in
order the more effectually to carry on the cause in which they had
embarked, and to seduce the unwary multitude into their quarrel. In
short, the passions of the Reformed, it is readily presumed, had, some
way or other, conjured up this spectre of Antichrist, as a convenient
engine, by which they might either gratify their own spleen, or excite
that of the people; the prophecies all the while being no further
concerned in the question, than as they were wrested for these purposes
(as they frequently have been, in like cases) from their true and
proper meaning.”
To remove this capital prejudice (which, more than any other, hath,
perhaps, diverted serious men from giving a due attention to this
argument) was the main purpose of the preceding discourse; in which
it was clearly shewn from historical testimony, that the question
concerning Antichrist had its rise in the earliest times; that the
prophecies concerning Antichrist, though imperfectly enough understood,
and, it may be, passionately applied, had yet, been considered,
very generally, as referring to _some_ corrupt Christian and even
ecclesiastical person or power; and that many eminent members of the
Christian church had even applied those prophecies to the _same_ person
or power, to which Protestants now apply them, and for the _same_ end,
which Protestants have in view, when they apply them to such person or
power, for many successive centuries, before the Reformation began.
From all which it is undeniable, that the Reformers did not innovate in
the interpretation of the prophecies concerning Antichrist; and that
their application of them to the see of Rome, was not a contrivance,
which sprung out of the passionate resentments, or interested policies
of that time.
It is true indeed (for the truth should not, and needs not be
concealed) that the Reformers were forward enough to lay hold on this
received sense of the prophecies, and to make their utmost advantage of
it; the account of which matter is, briefly, this: The Christian church
had now for many ages been held together in a close dependence on the
chair of St. Peter; and to secure and perpetuate that dependence, was
the principal object and concern of the papal court. Various means
were employed for this purpose; but the most effectual was thought to
be, to inculcate in the strongest terms on the minds of Christians the
absolute necessity of communicating with the Bishop of Rome, as the
centre of unity, and, by divine appointment, the supreme visible head
of the Christian world. Hence, to renounce in any degree the authority
and jurisdiction of Rome, was deemed the most inexpiable of all sins.
The name of SCHISM was fastened upon it; a name, which was sounded
higher than that of Heresy itself, as implying in it the accumulated
guilt of Apostacy, and Infidelity. The way of heaven was shut against
all offenders of this sort; and, to make their condition as miserable,
as it was hopeless, all the engines of persecution, such as racks,
fires, gibbets, inquisitions, and even Crusades, had been employed
against them: as was seen in the case of the Albigenses and others,
who, at different times, had attempted to withdraw themselves from the
papal dominion.
Such was the state of things, when the bold spirit of Luther resolved,
at all adventures, to break through this inveterate servitude[139], so
dextrously imposed on the Christian world, under the pretence, and in
the name, of ecclesiastical union. Yet the peril of the attempt was
easily foreseen, or was presently felt. And, therefore, the Reformers
(to prevent the ill effects which the dreadful name of _Schism_ might
have on themselves and their cause, and to satisfy at once their own
consciences and those of their adherents) not only revived and enforced
the old charge of _Antichristianism_ against the church of Rome; but
further insisted (on the authority of those prophecies which justified
the charge) that Christians were bound in conscience, by the most
express command, to break all communion with her. The expedient, one
sees, was well calculated to serve the purpose in hand: but still
the command was truly and pertinently alledged; for it exists in so
many words (however the blindness or the bigotry of former times had
overlooked it) in the book of the _Revelations_[140]. So that whoever
admitted the _charge_ itself to be well founded, could not reject this
_consequence_ of it, That Christ and Antichrist had no fellowship
with each other. And on this popular ground, chiefly, the Protestant
cause, in those early times, was upheld; with no small advantage to the
patrons of it; it being now clear, that the invidious imputation of
Schism had lost its malignity in the general obligation, which lay upon
Christians, to renounce all communion with the church of Rome.
This being the true account of that zeal, with which the doctrine of
Antichrist was asserted in the days of Reformation, let us see how
the case stands at present; and whether any reasonable prejudice lies
against the doctrine itself, from the uses, that were then so happily
made of it.
In the first place, The injunction, _to come out of her_, was, as I
observed, not forged by the Reformers; nor (admitting that church
to be Antichristian) was it misrepresented by them. Every reader of
the prophecies must confess, that the command is clearly delivered,
and that the sense of it is not mistaken. How serviceable soever,
therefore, this topic was to the cause of reformation, it is not, on
that account, to be the less esteemed by the just and candid inquirer.
In the next place, I will freely admit, that the dread, in which most
men, if not all men[141], of that time, were held, of incurring the
imputation of Schism, was much greater, than the occasion required,
and, upon the whole, a sort of panic terror. For, though a causeless
separation from the church would indeed have loaded the Reformers with
much and real guilt, yet when the abuses of it had risen to that height
as to reduce an honest man to the alternative, either of committing
sin, or of leaving its communion, they might well have justified
themselves on the evident necessity of the thing, and had no need of
a positive command to authorize their separation. All this is, now,
clearly seen; and if the first Reformers did not see thus much (as
very probably they did not) all that follows is, That the doctrine
of Antichrist, from which that command derived its effect, was less
necessary to their cause, than they supposed it to be; not, that the
doctrine itself is without authority, or the command without obligation.
Lastly, I observe, that, though the _violences_ of the time might
force the Reformers to take shelter in this doctrine of Antichrist,
and though the _prejudices_ of the time might induce them to take
the advantage, they did, of it; yet, neither of these considerations
affords any just presumption against the doctrine, as it lies in
scripture, and is enforced by us at this time out of it; because we
argue, not from their authority, but from the prophecies themselves;
which are much better understood by us, than they were by them; and
are still maintained to speak the sense, which they put upon them, I
mean with respect to the general application of them to the church of
Rome, though we have nothing to apprehend either from the power of that
church, or from the prejudices of the people.
Let no man, therefore, rashly conclude, from the free use made of this
doctrine by our old Reformers (and there is scarce one of them that has
not left behind him a tract or discourse on Antichrist) that it hath
no better or other foundation, than in their interests or passions. A
reasonable man sees, that it has no dependance at all upon them. That
Luther, indeed, heated in the controversy with the church of Rome, and
smoaking, as I may say, from the recent blast of the papal thunders,
should cry out, ANTICHRIST[142], shall pass, if you will, for a sally
of rage and desperation[143]. But that we, at this day, who revolve the
prophecies at our ease, and are in little more dread of modern Rome,
than of ancient Babylon, should still find the resemblance so striking
as to fall upon the same idea; and should even be driven against the
strong bias of prejudice (which with us, in England, for above a
century past, has drawn the other way) to adopt the language of our
great Reformer; this, I say, is a consideration of another sort, and
will not be put off so slightly.
STILL, there are other prejudices, which oppose themselves to this
great Protestant principle, _That the Pope is Antichrist_; and these,
it will not be beside the purpose of this Lecture to consider. It may,
then, be said,
II. “That, although there be not the same evident necessity for
bringing this odious charge against the Papacy, as there was formerly
in the infancy of Reformation, yet obvious reasons are not wanting,
which may possibly induce the Protestant churches of our times to
repeat and inforce it. So long as the separation is kept up, the
partizans of the cause will not scruple to lay hold on every popular
topic, by which it may be promoted. But an _ill name_, is the readiest
of all expedients, and generally the most effectual, for this service.
And as _Heretic_ is the term in use, when the church of Rome would
discredit the Reformation; so, _Antichrist_ serves just as well, in
the mouth of a Protestant, to disgrace the Catholic party. Hence, the
people are gratified in a low spite against the person of the Pope; the
better sort are confirmed in their religious or politic aversion to the
church of Rome; and Princes themselves are invited to come in aid of
the prophecies, by turning their arms and councils against a godless
antichristian tyranny: and all this, to the ruin of public peace, and
in defiance of Christian charity.”