Revelation 14:6-7

Another angel,...saying: Fear the Lord. [1] By this Angel are represented the preachers of the gospel, exhorting all men to a true faith and a good life. (Witham)

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

I cannot but admire how Dr. W., after his learned modern divines, Mr. Mede and Mr. Whiston, could hook in the popish antichrist in so many places on this chapter, as ver. 7, where it is said fear God, the Christians, says he, are forewarned not to fall into any corruptions the visible Church afterwards fell into, particularly popery. According to a great many of our Protestant adversaries, the popes have been the great antichrist ever since the destruction of the heathen Roman emperors in the fourth age [century], and yet no man ever dreamt of it or suspected it. The Protestants tell the people, they need but open their Bibles and Testaments to see and find the monstrous popish antichrist, the frightful beast with seven heads and ten horns; and what is more strange than all the rest, not any one of the Latin or Greek Church for so many ages [centuries] could ever see the leas appearance of what to them is visible at the first sight. The Greek Church, by an unfortunate schism, was divided from the Latin in the ninth age [century]: they wanted not learned men among them, well read in the Scriptures, who omitted nothing that could be alleged to justify their schism and separation from the pope of Rome. It is possible that neither Photius nor any one among them should see this truth, so palpable that every Protestant presently discovers it at the opening of his New Testament? This at once would have justified their separation. This invention, which doubtless was suggested by the most subtle adversary of popery, first came, says the bishop of Meaux on the Apocalypse, from the late Manicheans, a sect among the Albigenses, as infamous for their errors as for their manners, (see Nat. Alex. tom. 6, Sæc. 11. and 12. p. 490. and tom. 7. Sæc. 13. p. 66) who, among other detestable blasphemies against God, against Jesus Christ and his blessed Mother, taught the people that pope Silvester in Constantine's time was antichrist, and the Church from that time was become a den of thieves, and the harlot in the Apocalypse. I scarce think the reasons they brought will be approved by the writers of the late reformation, inasmuch, said they, as the Church and ministers of the Church were then permitted to receive ecclesiastical benefices and revenues. These heretics were followed in some points by Wycliffe and his disciples; but perhaps upon a strict examination, they only meant that the pope and bishops taught antichristian doctrine, and so were to be esteemed adversaries to Christ and precursors of antichrist. We may look upon Luther (though he denied the Apocalypse of St. John to be canonical Scripture) and the Lutherans and Calvinists, to be the true inventors of this empty and incoherent fable of the popish antichrist, twelve hundred years after the popes had successively one after another been the one, great, and famous antichrist. These lovers of novelty, liberty, and Church lands found the obscure revelations in the Apocalypse very convenient for their arbitrary fancies, where they could make the wicked Babylon not signify the heathen Roman empire, with St. Irenæus and the primitive fathers, but to be the Christian popish Rome; and the scarlet whore must be the popes and cardinals who wear scarlet and purple. An argument not inferior to that Mr. Andrew Willet, who found out the pope to be the angel that opened with a key the bottomless pit, because, he said he, who give the cross keys for this arms but the pope? The last reformers of the faith found their ingenious expositions of the Apocalypse a fit means to stir up kings and princes, as well as the ignorant populace and unthinking mob against the tyranny of this Babylon: it is not my remark, nor that of the bishop of Meaux only, but of their learned Dr. Hammond, who, after he hath given us the extravagant and trifling ravings of Mr. Brightman, says, "that what such writers aim at, is to put the people in mind that they are to pull down antichrist. Nothing (says Dr. Hammond) can be more effectual towards the raising and fomenting of commotions." It is evident the country parson can never be at a loss, or want matter, to excite his parishioners (as occasion offers itself) to a detestation of popery and all papists, if he has but Mr. Brightman's revelations on the seven epistles in the second and third Chapter s of St. John's Apocalypse, written to the Protestant churches by name. See what we have cited on those Chapter s. If he keep by him Mr. Willet's expositions of the number of the name of antichrist, whereby he may prove that the three letters are each of them crosses, and that the sign of the cross, still retained by papists, is in very deed the cognizance of antichrist. He may confirm the same by Mr. Willet's evident demonstration, as he himself calls it. Take it in his own words, in his Synop. Papismi. Controv. 4. q. 16. "Antichrist, says he, is the great whore of Babylon, i.e. of Rome: and here Willet devoutly, we are to note the singular providence of God, who suffereth not a jot of his word to fall to the ground: for even so verily, in the year 853, next after Leo. IV. there was a right whore elected pope, called John, or if you will, Joan VIII. who fell in labour in the midst of a solemn procession: thus then by evident demonstration it appeareth that the pope is the whore of Babylon, and consequently antichrist." Is not this witty? No matter if by the same logic every whore that ever lived in Rome may be proved antichrist. But as for the story of pope Joan, David Blondel, a French hugonot, has shewn it to be a fable; for it neither was pope John, nor Joan, that succeeded Leo IV. in the year 853. Leo IV. died in July 853, to whom succeeded, in August or September of the same year, Benedict III. so that no place is found for pope John or Joan, to reign after Leo two years and five months, as the authors of that story pretend. The parson, if need be, may add the expositions on the seven vials of the learned and pious divine, Mr. Mede, as Dr. W. calls him: (though the bishop of Meaux looks upon him as a mere enthusiast) the effusion of the first vial, says Mede, was when the Waldenses and Albigenses, and the followers of Wycliffe, and Hus began to renounce popery. The second vial was completed by what is more eminently styled the reformation, begun by Luther, and carried on afterwards by many others. The third vial was completed partly by the laws made here in England in the reign of queen Elizabeth against popish priests, partly by the great overthrow given to the Spanish armada, in the year 1588, and also to the Spanish forces in the Netherlands. See the rest in Dr. W. p. 127. But Dr. W. with Mr. Whiston, looks upon the vials to be all still future. I cannot think that the learned men among the Protestants believe the popes to be antichrist, especially since time, that discovers what is true as to matters of fact, that are pretended to be foretold, has confuted the conjectures of de Moulin, Jurieu, Mede, Whiston, &c. I must here do justice to divers learned men of the Protestant communion. Grotius, in a letter (epist. 557.) to the Protestant John Gerard Vossius, tells him, "that they who did not believe the popes to be antichrist, nevertheless judged it necessary to give such interpretations, for the public good of the Protestant religion." See Mons. de Meaux in his advertisement, num. 1. The same Vossius answers, (ep. 571.) "that he himself having told a certain minister of Dort, whom he calls thickscull, (lourde tete) that he should not impose on the people, even against popery, that minister presently asked him if he was for taking the papists' part, whom, said he, we cannot run down too much, that the people may the more detest their Church. This, adds Vossius, is much the same as some others said to me at Amsterdam: why should not we say the pope is antichrist? must we leave off saying so? and make the people leave our communion more and more, as if too many did not leave it already?" This was a secret that was not to be divulged. Of our English Protestants, I have read Dr. Hammond's paraphrase and notes, on the second chapter of Thessalonians; and on the Revelation or Apocalypse, he never pretends that the popes are antichrist. The predictions in St. John, of the beasts, of the fall of Babylon, of the great harlot, he expounds, as fulfilled already, by the destruction of pagan Rome, and of its idolatry, superstitions, auguries, under the heathen emperors, much after the same manner as Alcazar, and as the bishop of Meaux and other Catholic writers. Mr. Richard Montague, in his Gag. p. 74, writes thus: "Whether the pope be that antichrist, or not, the Church (of England) resolveth not, tendereth it not to be believed any way. Some, I grant, are very peremptory indeed that he is. He, for instance, who wrote and printed it, I am as sure the pope is antichrist, that antichrist spoken of in the Scripture, as that Jesus Christ is God: but they that are so resolute, peremptory, and certain, let them answer for themselves. The Church is not tied, nor any one that I know of, to make good their private imaginations. For myself, I profess ingenuously I am not of opinion that the bishops of Rome personally are the antichrist....nor yet that the bishops of Rome successively are that antichrist," &c. He only holds the pope and papists to be antichrists improperly in the sense that St. John says, there are many antichrists. He cites for the same opinion Melancthon and others. Mr. Thorndike, in his just weights and measures, (chap. ii.) speaking to those two points, that the pope is antichrist, and papists idolaters. "The truth, says he, is, they of the Church of Rome have overcharged us, in calling us heretics....but they that would have the pope antichrist, and the papists idolaters, have revived it upon them, and taken their revenge beyond the bounds of blameless defence.... Let them not lead the people by the nose, to believe that they can prove the supposition, which they cannot, " &c. The same Mr. Thorndike, in chap. 19, p. 125, &c. shews more at large that their reverencing images in churches is no idolatry. And again, (p. 149) " having shewed, says he, why the Church of Rome cannot be charged with idolatry, I may from hence infer that the pope cannot be antichrist." Yet Dr. W. on the Apocalypse, has another argument to prove the pope is antichrist, that is, by a new invention, the mystical antichrist, foretold by St. John, and his reign to be twelve hundred and sixty years, only because he supposeth that the pope and papists give divine honour, the honour that is due to God alone, to images, saints, and Angels. This he continually repeats, and takes it for a thing granted. It seems very strange, that so learned a doctor, after such mistakes have been canvassed and cleared, as appears by what hath been written by Mr. Thorndike on this subject, should still run on in this groundless supposition, contrary to all the protestations which the Catholics have constantly made. Every little papist boy or girl can assure the doctor, that they have been always taught to give divine worship to God alone: they will recite to him the words of their catechism, that they pray indeed before images, to put them in mind of things thereby represented, but they do not pray to them, because they know they can neither see, nor hear, nor help them: they will tell him that the Angels and saints, even the blessed Virgin Mother of Christ, and the true mother of God made man, is no more than a creature below God, at an infinite distance; and so that the inferior honour that we pay to them, is nothing like to that supreme and divine honour, which we pay to God alone. In a word we know, and have always professed that images, Angels, and saints are but creatures; and as we are not such fools as to think them Gods, so neither are we so senseless as to pay them divine honour.