CHAPTER XVII

The judgment of the great whore, which sits on many waters, 1, 2. Her description, name, and conduct, 3-6. The angel explains the mystery of the woman, of the beast, &c., 7-18. This chapter is, on several accounts, very important, and particularly as it appears to explain several of the most remarkable symbols in the book. The same author who has written so largely on the twelfth and thirteenth chapters, has also obliged me with his interpretation of this chapter. Not pretending to explain these things myself, I insert this as the most elabourate and learned exposition I have yet seen, leaving my readers at perfect liberty to reject it, and adopt any other mode of interpretation which they please. God alone knows all the secrets of his own wisdom.

Verse 1. And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters] That idolatrous worship is frequently represented in Scripture under the character of a whore or whoredom, is evident from numerous passages which it is unnecessary to quote. See 1 Chron. v. 25; Ezek. xvi. 1-63; xxiii. 1-49, &c. The woman mentioned here is called a great whore, to denote her excessive depravity, and the artful nature of her idolatry. She is also represented as sitting upon many waters, to show the vast extent of her influence. See on ver. 13.

Verse 2. With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.] What an awful picture this is of the state of the religion of the world in subjection to this whore! Kings have committed spiritual fornication with her, and their subjects have drunk deep, dreadfully deep, into the doctrine of her abominable errors.

Verse 3. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness] This wilderness into which the apostle was carried is the desolate state of the true Church of Christ, in one of the wings of the once mighty Roman empire. It was a truly awful sight, a terrible desert, a waste howling wilderness; for when he came hither he:- Saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.] No doubt can now be entertained that this woman is the Latin Church, for she sits upon the beast with seven heads and ten horns, which has been already proved to be the Latin empire, because this empire alone contains the number 666. See on chap. xiii. 18. This is a representation of the Latin Church in her highest state of antichristian prosperity, for she SITS UPON the scarlet coloured beast, a striking emblem of her complete domination over the secular Latin empire. The state of the Latin Church from the commencement of the fourteenth century to the time of the Reformation may be considered that which corresponds to this prophetic description in the most literal and extensive sense of the words; for during this period she was at her highest pitch of worldly grandeur and temporal authority. The beast is full of names of blasphemy; and it is well known that the nations, in support of the Latin or Romish Church, have abounded in blasphemous appellations, and have not blushed to attribute to themselves and to their Church the most sacred titles, not only blaspheming by the improper use of sacred names, but even by applying to its bishop those names which alone belong to God; for God hath expressly declared that he will not give his glory to another, neither his praise to graven images.

Verse 4. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication] This strikingly represents the most pompous and costly manner in which the Latin Church has held forth to the nations the rites and ceremonies of its idolatrous and corrupt worship.

Verse 5. And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots, and Abominations of the Earth.] This inscription being written upon her forehead is intended to show that she is not ashamed of her doctrines, but publicly professes and glories in them before the nations: she has indeed a whore's forehead, she has refused to be ashamed. The inscription upon her forehead is exactly the portraiture of the Latin Church. This Church is, as Bishop Newton well expresses it, A MYSTERY of iniquity. This woman is also called Babylon the Great; she is the exact antitype of the ancient Babylon in her idolatry and cruelty, but the ancient city called Babylon is only a drawing of her in miniature. This is indeed Babylon THE GREAT. "She affects the style and title of our HOLY MOTHER, the CHURCH; but she is, in truth, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth."

Verse 6. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.] How exactly the cruelties exercised by the Latin Church against all it has denominated heretics correspond with this description, the reader need not be informed.

Verse 7. And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel! I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carried her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.] The apostle was greatly astonished, as well he might be, at the woman's being drunk with the blood of the saints, when the beast which carried her abounded with sacred appellations, such as holy, most holy, most Christian, sacred, most sacred.

The angel undertakes to explain to St. John the vision which had excited in him so great astonishment; and the explication is of such great importance, that, had it not been given, the mystery of the dragon and the beast could never have been satisfactorily explained in all its particulars. The angel begins with saying:-

Verse 8. The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition] The beast is the Latin kingdom; (Æh latinh basileia;) consequently the beast was, that is, was in existence previously to the time of St. John; (for Latinus was the first king of the Latins, and Numitor the last;) is not now, because the Latin nation has ceased long ago to be an independent power, and is now under the dominion of the Romans; but shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, that is, the Latin kingdom, the antichristian power, or that which ascendeth out of the abyss or bottomless pit, is yet in futurity. But it is added:- And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names there not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.] By the earth is here meant the Latin world; therefore the meaning is, that all who dwell in the Latin world shall adhere to the idolatrous and blasphemous religion of the Latin Church, which is supported by the Latin empire, except those who abide by the sacred Scriptures, receiving them as the only rule of faith and practice. These believe in the true Sacrifice, and keep themselves unspotted from the corruption that is in the world. But the inhabitants of the Latin world, under the dominion of the Romish religion, shall wonder when they behold the beast, or Latin empire; that is, as Lord Napier remarks, "shall have in great admiration, reverence, and estimation, this great monarchie." They shall wonder at it, by considering it the most sacred empire in the world, that in which God peculiarly delights; but those that so wonder have not their names written in the book of life, but are such as prefer councils to Divine revelation, and take their religion from missals, rituals, and legends, instead of the sacred oracles: hence they are corrupt and idolatrous, and no idolater hath inheritance in the kingdom of God. In the preceding part of the verse the beast is considered in three states, as that which was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit; here a fourth is introduced, and yet is. This is added to show that, though the Latins were subjugated by the Romans, nevertheless the Romans themselves were Latins; for Romulus the founder of their monarchy, was a Latin; consequently that denominated in St. John's days the Roman empire was, in reality, the Latin kingdom; for the very language of the empire was the Latin, and the Greek writers, who lived in the time of the Roman empire, expressly tell us that those formerly called Latins are now named Romans. The meaning of the whole verse is therefore as follows: The corrupt part of mankind shall have in great admiration the Latin empire yet in futurity, which has already been, but is now extinct, the Romans having conquered it; and yet is still in being; for, though the Latin nation has been subjugated, its conquerors are themselves Latins. But it may be objected against the interpretation here given, that these phrases are spoken of the beast upon which the apostle saw the woman, or Latin Church, sit; for the angel says, The beast that THOU SAWEST was, and is not, &c.; what reference, therefore, can the Latin empire, which supports the Latin Church, have to the Latin kingdom which subsisted before St. John's time, or to the Roman empire which might properly be so denominated! This objection has very great weight at first sight, and cannot be answered satisfactorily till the angel's explanation of the heads and horns of the beast have been examined; therefore it is added:-

Verse 9. Here is the mind which hath wisdom.] It was said before, chap. xiii. 18, Here is wisdom. Let him that hath A MIND, or understanding, (noun,) count the number of the beast. Wisdom, therefore, here means a correct view of what is intended by the number 666; consequently the parallel passage, Here is THE MIND which hath WISDOM, is a declaration that the number of the beast must first be understood, before the angel's interpretation of the vision concerning the whore and the beast can admit of a satisfactory explanation.

The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.] This verse has been almost universally considered to allude to the seven hills upon which Rome originally stood. But it has been objected that modern Rome is not thus situated, and that, consequently, pagan Rome is intended in the prophecy. This is certainly a very formidable objection against the generally received opinion among Protestants, that papal Rome is the city meant by the woman sitting upon seven mountains. It has been already shown that the woman here mentioned is an emblem of the Latin Church in her highest state of antichristian prosperity; and therefore the city of Rome, seated upon seven mountains, is not at all designed in the prophecy. In order to understand this scripture aright, the word mountains must be taken in a figurative and not a literal sense, as in chap. vi. 14; xvi. 20. See also Isa. ii. 2, 14; Jer. li. 25; Dan. ii. 35, &c.; in which it is unequivocally the emblem of great and mighty power. The mountains upon which the woman sitteth must be, therefore, seven great powers; and as the mountains are heads of the beast, they must be the seven GREATEST eminences of the Latin world. As no other power was acknowledged at the head of the Latin empire but that of Germany, how can it be said that the beast has seven heads? This question can only be solved by the feudal constitution of the late Germanic league, the history of which is briefly as follows: At first kings alone granted fiefs. They granted them to laymen only, and to such only who were free; and the vassal had no power to alienate them. Every freeman, and particularly the feudal tenants, were subject to the obligation of military duty, and appointed to guard their sovereign's life, member, mind, and right honour. Soon after, or perhaps a little before, the extinction of the Carlovingian dynasty in France, by the accession of the Capetian line, and in Germany by the accession of the house of Saxony, fiefs, which had been entirely at the disposal of the sovereign, became hereditary. Even the offices of duke, count, margrave, &c., were transmitted in the course of hereditary descent; and not long after, the right of primogeniture was universally established. The crown vassals usurped the sovereign property of the land, with civil and military authority over the inhabitants. The possession thus usurped they granted out to their immediate tenants; and these granted them over to others in like manner. Thus the principal vassals gradually obtained every royal prerogative; they promulgated laws, exercised the power of life and death, coined money, fixed the standard of weights and measures, granted safeguards, entertained a military force, and imposed taxes, with every right supposed to be annexed to royalty. In their titles they styled themselves dukes, &c., Dei gratis, by the grace of God; a prerogative avowedly confined to sovereign power. It was even admitted that, if the king refused to do the lord justice, the lord might make war upon him. The tenants, in their turn, made themselves independent of their vassal lords, by which was introduced an ulterior state of vassalage. The king was called the sovereign lord, his immediate vassal was called the suzereign, and the tenants holding of him were called the arrere vassals. See Butler's Revolutions of the Germanic Empire, pp. 54-66. Thus the power of the emperors of Germany, which was so very considerable in the ninth century, was gradually diminished by the means of the feudal system; and during the anarchy of the long interregnum, occasioned by the interference of the popes in the election of the emperors, (from 1256 to 1273,) the imperial power was reduced almost to nothing. Rudolph of Hapsburg, the founder of the house of Austria, was at length elected emperor, because his territories and influence were so inconsiderable as to excite no jealously in the German princes, who were willing to preserve the forms of constitution, the power and vigour of which they had destroyed. See Robertson's Introduction to his History of Charles V. Before the dissolution of the empire in 1806, Germany "presented a complex association of principalities more or less powerful, and more or less connected with a nominal sovereignty in the emperor, as its supreme feudal chief."There were about three hundred princes of the empire, each sovereign in his own country, who might enter into alliances, and pursue by all political measures his own private interest, as other sovereigns do; for if even an imperial war were declared he might remain neuter, if the safety of the empire were not at stake. Here then was an empire of a construction, without exception, the most singular and intricate that ever appeared in the world; for the emperor was only the chief of the Germanic confederation." Germany was, therefore, speaking in the figurative language of Scripture, a country abounding in hills, or containing an immense number of distinct principalities. But the different German states (as has been before observed) did not each possess an equal share of power and influence; some were more eminent than others. Among them were also a few which might, with the greatest propriety, be denominated mountains, or states possessing a very high degree of political importance.

But the seven mountains on which the woman sits must have their elevations above all the other eminences in the whole Latin world; consequently, they can be no other than the SEVEN ELECTORATES of the German empire. These were, indeed, mountains of vast eminence; for in their sovereigns was vested the sole poorer of electing the head of the empire. But this was not all; for besides the power of electing an emperor, the electors had a right to capitulate with the new head of the empire, to dictate the conditions on which he was to reign, and to depose him if he broke those conditions. They actually deposed Adolphus of Nassau in 1298, and Wenceslaus in 1400. They were sovereign and independent princes in their respective dominions, had the privilegium de non appellando illimitatum, that of making war, coining, and exercising every act of sovereignty; they formed a separate college in the diet of the empire, and had among themselves a particular covenant or league called Kur verein; they had precedence of all the other princes of the empire, and even ranked with kings. The heads of the beast understood in this way, is one of the finest emblems of the German constitution which can possibly be conceived; for as the Roman empire of Germany had the precedence of all the other monarchies of which the Latin empire was composed, the seven mountains very fitly denote the seven PRINCIPAL powers of what has been named the holy Roman empire. And also, as each electorate, by virtue of its union with the Germanic body, was more powerful than any other Roman Catholic state of Europe not so united; so was each electorate, in the most proper sense of the word, one of the highest elevations in the Latin world. The time when the seven electorates of the empire were first instituted is very uncertain. The most probable opinion appears to be that which places their origin some time in the thirteenth century. The uncertainty, however, in this respect, does not in the least weaken the evidence of the mountains being the seven electorates, but rather confirms it; for, as we have already observed, the representation of the woman sitting upon the beast is a figure of the Latin Church in the period of her greatest authority, spiritual and temporal; this we know did not take place before the commencement of the fourteenth century, a period subsequent to the institution of the seven electorates. Therefore the woman sits upon the seven mountains, or the German empire in its elective aristocratical state; she is said to sit upon them, to denote that she has the whole German empire under her direction and authority, and also that it is her chief support and strength. Supported by Germany, she is under no apprehension of being successfully opposed by any other power: she sits upon the seven mountains, therefore she is higher than the seven highest eminences of the Latin world; she must therefore have the secular Latin empire under her complete subjection. But this state of eminence did not continue above two or three centuries; the visible declension of the papal power in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, occasioned partly by the removal of the papal see from Rome to Avignon, and more particularly by the great schism from 1377 to 1417, though considered one of the remote causes of the Reformation, was at first the means of merely transferring the supreme power from the pope to a general council, while the dominion of the Latin Church remained much the same. At the council of Constance, March 30, 1415, it was decreed "that the synod being lawfully assembled in the name of the Holy Ghost, which constituted the general council, and represented the whole Catholic Church militant, had its power immediately from Jesus Christ; and that every person, of whatsoever state or dignity, EVEN THE POPE HIMSELF is obliged to obey it in what concerns the faith, the extirpation of schism, and the general reformation of the Church in its head and members." The council of Basil of 1432 decreed "that every one of whatever dignity or condition, NOT EXCEPTING THE POPE HIMSELF, who shall refuse to obey the ordinances and decrees of this general council, or any other, shall be put under penance, and punished. It is also declared that the pope has no power to dissolve the general council without the consent and decree of the assembly." See the third tome of Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History. But what gave the death blow to the temporal sovereignty of the Latin Church was the light of the glorious reformation which first broke out in Germany in 1517, and in a very few years gained its way, not only over several of the great principalities in Germany, but was also made the established religion of other popish countries.

Consequently, in the sixteenth century, the woman no longer sat upon the seven mountains, the electorates not only having refused to be ruled by her, but some of them having also despised and abandoned her doctrines.

The changes, therefore, which were made in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, in the number of the electorates, will not affect in the least the interpretation of the seven mountains already given. The seven electors were the archbishops of Mentz, Cologne, and Triers, the count palatine of the Rhine, the duke of Saxony, the marquis of Brandenburgh, and the king of Bohemia. But the heads of the beast have a double signification; for the angel says:-

Verse 10. And there are seven kings] kai basileiv epta eisin? They are also seven kings. Before, it was said, they are seven mountains; here, they are also seven kings, which is a demonstration that kingdoms are not here meant by mountains: and this is a farther argument that the seven electorates are represented by seven mountains, for though the sovereigns of these states ranked with kings, they were not kings: that is to say, they were not absolute and sole lords of the territories they possessed, independently of the emperor, for their states formed a part of the Germanic body. But the seven heads of the beast are also seven kings, that is to say, the Latin empire has had seven supreme forms of government; for king is used in the prophetical writings for any supreme governor of a state or people, as is evident from Deut. xxxiii. 5, where Moses is called a king. Of these seven kings, or supreme forms of Latin government, the angel informs St. John:- Five are fallen, and one is] It is well known that the first form of Latin government was that of kings, which continued after the death of Latinus 428 years, till the building of Rome, B.C. 753. After Numitor's decease the Albans or Latins instituted the form of a republic, and were governed by dictators. We have only the names of two, viz., Cluilius and Metius Fufetius or Suffetius; but as the dictatorship continued at least eighty-eight years, there might have been others, though their names and actions are unknown. In the year before Christ 665 Alba, the metropolis of the Latin nation, was destroyed by Tullus Hostilius, the third king of the Romans, and the inhabitants carried to Rome. This put an end to the monarchical republic of the Latins; and the Latins elected two annual magistrates, whom Licinius calls dictators, but who are called praetors by other writers.

This form of government continued till the time of P. Decius Mus, the Roman consul; for Festus, in his fourteenth book, informs us "that the Albans enjoyed prosperity till the time of King Tullus; but that, Alba being then destroyed, the consuls, till the time of P. Decius Mus, held a consultation with the Latins at the head of Ferentina, and the empire was governed by the council of both nations." The Latin nation was entirely subjugated by the Romans B.C. 336, which put an end to the government by praetors, after it had continued upwards of three hundred years. The Latins from this time ceased to be a nation, as it respects the name; therefore the three forms of government already mentioned were those which the Latins had during that period which the angel speaks of, when he says, The beast which thou sawest WAS. But as five heads, or forms of government, had fallen before St. John's time, it is evident that the two other forms of government which had fallen must be among those of the Romans; first, because though the Latin nation so called, was deprived of all authority by the Romans, yet the Latin power continued to exist, for the very conquerors of the Latin nation were Latins; and, consequently the Latins, though a conquered people, continued to have a LATIN government.

Secondly, the angel expressly says, when speaking to St. John, that one is, that is, the sixth head, or Latin form of government, was then in existence; which could be no other than the imperial power, this being the only independent form of Latin government in the apostolic age. It therefore necessarily follows, that the Roman forms of government by which Latium was ruled must be the remaining heads of the beast. Before the subjugation of the Latins by the Romans four of the Roman or draconic forms of government had fallen, the regal power, the dictatorship, the decemvirate, and the consular power of the military tribunes, the last of which was abolished about 366 years before the commencement of the Christian era; none of these, therefore, ruled over the WHOLE Latin nation. But as the Latins were finally subdued about 336 B.C., the consular government of the Romans, which was then the supreme power in the state, must be the fourth head of the beast. This form of government continued, with very little interruption, till the rising up of the triumvirate, the fifth head of the beast, B.C. 43. The dictatorship of Sylla and Julius Caesar could not be considered a new head of the beast, as the Latins had already been ruled by it in the persons of Cluilius and Fufetius. The sixth head of the beast, or that which existed in the time of St. John, was consequently, as we have already proved, the imperial power of the heathen Caesars, or the seventh draconic form of government.

And the other is not yet come] Bishop Newton considers the Roman dutchy, under the eastern emperor's lieutenant, the exarch of Ravenna, the seventh head of the beast. But this cannot be the form of government signified by the seventh head, for a head of the beast as we have already shown, is a supreme, independent form of Latin government; consequently the Roman dutchy cannot be the seventh head, as it was dependent upon the exarchate of Ravenna; and the exarchate cannot be the head, as it was itself in subjection to the Greek empire. The chap. G. Faber has ascertained the truth exactly in denominating the Carlovingian patriciate the seventh head of the beast. That this was a supreme, independent form of government, is evident from history. Gibbon, in speaking of the patriciate, observes that "the decrees of the senate and people successively invested Charles Martel and his posterity with the honours of patrician of Rome.

The leaders of a powerful nation would have disdained a servile title and subordinate office; but the reign of the Greek emperors was suspended, and in the vacancy of the empire they derived a more glorious commission from the pope and the republic. The Roman ambassadors presented these patricians with the keys of the shrine of St. Peter as a pledge and symbol of sovereignty, and with a holy banner, which it was their right and duty to unfurl in defense of the Church and city. In the time of Charles Martel and of Pepin, the interposition of the Lombard kingdom covered the freedom, while it threatened the safety of Rome; and the patriciate represented only the title, the service, the alliance, of these distant protectors. The power and policy of Charlemagne annihilated an enemy, and imposed a master. In his first visit to the capital he was received with all the honours which had formerly been paid to the exarch, the representative of the emperor; and these honours obtained some new decorations from the joy and gratitude of Pope Adrian I. In the portico Adrian expected him at the head of his clergy; they embraced as friends and equals; but in their march to the altar, the king, or patrician, assumed the right hand of the pope. Nor was the Frank content with these vain and empty demonstrations of respect. In the twenty-six years that elapsed between the conquest of Lombardy and his imperial coronation, Rome, which had been delivered by the sword, was subject, as his own, to the scepter of Charlemagne. The people swore allegiance to his person and family, in his name money was coined and justice was administered, and the election of the popes was examined and confirmed by his authority.

Except an original and self-inherent claim of sovereignty, there was not any prerogative remaining which the title of emperor could add to the patrician of Rome." The seven heads of the beast are therefore the following: The regal power, the dictatorship, the power of the praetors, the consulate, the triumvirate, the imperial power, and the patriciate.

And when he cometh, he must continue a short space.] The seventh form of government was only to remain a short time, which was actually the case; for from its first rise to independent power to its utter extinction, there passed only about forty-five years, a short time in comparison to the duration of several of the preceding forms of government; for the primitive regal government continued at least four hundred and twenty-eight years, the dictatorship was in power about eighty-eight years, the power of the praetors was in being for upwards of three hundred years, the consulate lasted about two hundred and eighty years, and the imperial power continued upwards of five hundred years.

Verse 11. And the beast, that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.] That is to say, the Latin kingdom that has already been, but is now no longer nominally in existence, shall immediately follow the dissolution of the seventh form of Latin government; and this dominion is called ogdoov, an eighth, because it succeeds to the seventh. Yet it is not an eighth head of the beast, because the beast has only seven heads; for to constitute a new head of the beast the form of government must not only differ in nature, but also in name.

This head of the beast is, therefore, ek twn epta, ONE of the seven.

Consequently the form of government represented by this head is the restoration of one of the preceding seven. The restored head can be therefore no other than the regal state of the Latins, or in other words the Latin kingdom, (Æh latinh basileia,) which followed the patriciate or seventh head of Latin government. But the beast in his eighth state, or under his first head restored, goeth into perdition. No other form of Latin government shall succeed; but the beast in his last or antichristian condition shall be taken together with the false prophet that wrought miracles in his sight, "and cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone." It is observable that the eighth Latin power is called by the angel the beast, and also one of his heads. This apparent discordance arises from the double signification of the heads, for if we take the beast upon which the woman sits to be merely a representation of that secular power which supports the Latin Church, then the seven heads will represent the seven electorates of the Germanic empire; but if by the beast we understand the general Latin empire from first to last, then what is, according to the angel's first interpretation of the heads, called the beast, is in this case only one of his heads. See on ver. 18.

Verse 12. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.] The meaning of horns has already been defined when speaking of those of the dragon. The meaning is therefore as follows: Though the Latin empire be now in existence, the ten horns refer to ten Latin kingdoms yet in futurity, and consequently they have received no dominion AS YET; for that part of the Latin domination now in power is the sixth head, or imperial government of the heathen Caesars. But the ten states of the Latins receive dominion as monarchies mian wran, one time, (as it may be properly translated,) i.e., at the same time with the beast, or that which ascendeth out of the bottomless pit; consequently, the Latin empire here intended is the one which was in futurity in the apostolic age.

Verse 13. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.] Therefore the ten horns must constitute the principal strength of the Latin empire; that is to say, this empire is to be composed of the dominions of ten monarchs independent of each other in every other sense except in their implicit obedience to the Latin Church. The beast in this and the preceding verse is distinguished from its horns, as the WHOLE Latin empire is distinguished in history from its constituent powers. See on ver. 16.

Verse 14. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them; for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and, faithful.] The ten powers of the beast must compose the secular kingdom of antichrist, for they make war with the Lamb, who is Christ Jesus. This is perfectly true of all popish states, for they have constantly opposed, as long as they have had any secular power, the progress of pure Christianity. They make war with the Lamb by persecuting his followers; but the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is the Lord of lords, and King of kings - all lords have their authority from him, and no king can reign without him; therefore the ten Latin kings are God's ministers to execute his vengeance upon the idolatrous nations. But when these antichristian monarchies have executed the Divine purpose, those that are with the Lamb-the called, the chosen, and the faithful, those who have kept THE TRuth in the love of it, shall prevail against all their adversaries, because their battles are fought by the Lamb, who is their God and Deliverer. See chap. xix. 19, 20.

Verse 15. And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.] "So many words," Bishop Newton observes, "in the plural number, fitly denote the great extensiveness of her power and jurisdiction. She herself glories in the title of the Catholic Church, and exults in the number of her votaries as a certain proof of the true religion. Cardinal Bellarmin's first note of the true Church is, the very name of the Catholic Church; and his fourth note is, amplitude, or multitude, and variety of believers; for the truly Catholic Church, says he, ought not only to comprehend all ages, but likewise all places, all nations, all kinds of men."

Verse 16. And the ten horns which thou sowest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.] Here is a clue to lead us to the right interpretation of the horns of the beast. It is said the TEN horns shall hate the whore; by which is evidently meant, when connected with what follows, that the whole of the ten kingdoms in the interest of the Latin Church shall finally despise her doctrines, be reformed from popery, assist in depriving her of all influence and in exposing her follies, and in the end consign her to utter destruction. From this it follows that no Roman Catholic power which did not exist so late as the Reformation can be numbered among the horns of the beast; the horns must, therefore, be found among the great states of Europe at the commencement of the Reformation. These were exactly ten, viz., France, Spain, England, Scotland, The Empire, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, and Portugal.

In these were comprehended most of the minor states not styled monarchies, and which, from their first rise to the period of the Reformation, had been subdued by one or more of the ten grand Roman Catholic powers already named. Consequently, these ten constituted the power and strength of the beast; and each minor state is considered a part of that monarchy under the authority of which it was finally reduced previously to the Reformation.

But it may be asked, How could the empire, which was the revived head of the beast, have been at the same time one of its horns? The answer is as follows: Horns of an animal, in the language of prophecy, represent the powers of which that empire or kingdom symbolized by the animal is composed. Thus the angel, in his interpretation of Daniel's vision of the ram and he-goat expressly informs us that "the ram with two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." One of the horns of the ram, therefore, represented the kingdom of Media, and the other the kingdom of Persia; and their union in one animal denoted the united kingdom of Media and Persia, viz., the Medo-Persian empire. In like manner the beast with ten horns denotes that the empire represented by the beast is composed of ten distinct powers, and the ten horns being united in one beast very appropriately show that the monarchies symbolized by these horns are united together to form one empire; for we have already shown, in the notes on chap. xiii. 1, that a beast is the symbol of an empire.

Therefore, as the horns of an animal, agreeably to the angel's explanation, (and we can have no higher authority,) represent all the powers of which that domination symbolized by the animal is composed, the Roman empire of Germany, as one of those monarchies which gave their power and strength to the Latin empire, must consequently have been A HORN of the beast. But the Germanic empire was not only a LATIN power, but at the same time was acknowledged by all Europe to have precedency of all the others. Therefore, as it is not possible to express these two circumstances by one symbol, it necessarily follows, from the nature of symbolical language, that what has been named the holy Roman empire must have a double representation. Hence the empire, as one of the powers of the Latin monarchy, was a horn of the beast, and in having precedency of all the others was its revived head. See a similar explanation of the tail of the dragon in the notes on chap. xii. 4.

Verse 17. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.] Let no one imagine that these ten Latin kingdoms, because they support an idolatrous worship, have been raised up merely by the power of man or the chances of war. No kingdom or state can exist without the will of God; therefore let the inhabitants of the world tremble when they see a wicked monarchy rise to power, and let them consider that it is raised up by the Lord to execute his vengeance upon the idolatries and profligacies of the times. It is said of the kings in communion with the Church of Rome, that God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will. How is this Divine will accomplished? In the most awful and afflictive manner! In causing ten Latin kings to unite their dominions into one mighty empire for the defense of the Latin Church. Here is a dreadful dispensation of Jehovah; but it is such as the nations have most righteously deserved, because when they had the truth they lived not according to its most holy requisitions, but loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Therefore hath "the Lord sent them strong delusion that they should believe a lie, that they might all be damned who believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness." But this deplorable state of the world is not perpetual, it can only continue till every word of God is fulfilled upon his enemies; and when this time arrives, (which will be that of Christ's second advent,) then shall the Son of God slay that wicked "with the spirit of his mouth, and shall consume him with the brightness of HIS COMING."

Verse 18. And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.] It has already been shown that the woman sitting upon the seven-headed beast is a representation of the Latin Church; here we have the greatest assurance that it is so, because the woman is called a city, which is a much plainer emblem of a Church, as the word is used unequivocally in this sense in so many parts of Scripture that we cannot well mistake its meaning. See chap. iii. 12; xi. 2; xxi. 10; xxii. 19; and also Psa. xlvi. 4; lxxxvii. 3; Heb. xii. 22, &c. The woman therefore must be the Latin Church; and as the apostle saw her sitting upon the beast, this must signify that h ecousa basileian, she hath A KINGDOM over the kings of the earth, i.e., over the kings of the Latin world, for that this is the meaning of earth has been shown before in numerous instances. That KINGDOM which the woman has over the kings of the Latin world, or secular Latin empire, or in other words THE KINGDOM of the Latin Church, is the numbered Latin kingdom or Romish hierarchy. See on chap. xiii. 18. The woman is also called a GREAT city, to denote the very great extent of her jurisdiction; for she has comprehended within her walls the subjects of the mighty dominations of France, Spain, England, Scotland, The Empire, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, and Portugal. What an extensive city was this! Surely such as to justify the prophetic denomination, that GREAT city.

HAVING now gone through the whole of the angel's interpretation of St. John's vision of a whore sitting upon the seven-headed and ten-horned beast, it will be essentially necessary to examine a little more attentively the eighth verse of this chapter. It has already been shown that the phrases, was, is not, shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and yet is, refer to the Latin kingdom which existed before the building of Rome, to the Roman empire in the time of St. John, and to the Latin empire which was in futurity in the apostolic age. But as the words was, is not, &c., are spoken of the beast upon which the apostle saw the woman, or Latin Church, sit; how can it be said of this beast that it had an existence before the date of the Apocalypse, when the woman whom it carried was not in being till long after this period? And what connection has the Latin empire of the middle ages with that which derived its name from Latinus, king of the Aborigines, and was subjugated by the ancient Romans; or even with that which existed in the time of the apostle? The answer is as follows: St. John saw the beast upon which the woman sat with all his seven heads and ten horns. Consequently, as the angel expressly says that five of these seven heads had already fallen in the time of the vision, it therefore necessarily follows that the apostle must have seen that part of the Latin empire represented by the seven-headed beast which had already been under the emblem of five heads. Therefore the woman sat upon the beast that WAS. But it is plain from the angel's interpretation that the whole of the seven heads fell, before the beast upon which the woman sat arose; and yet the woman is represented as sitting upon the seven-headed beast to denote, as we have before observed, that it is the Latin kingdom in its last estate, or under one of its heads restored, which is the secular kingdom of antichrist. The beast is also said not to have any existence in the time of the vision; from which it is evident that the monarchy of the Latins, and not that of the Romans, is here intended; because the latter was in the time of the vision. Again, the beast which St. John saw had not ascended out of the bottomless pit in his time; consequently the whole seven heads and ten horns were in futurity, for all these heads and horns rose up out of the abyss at the same time with the beast. How is this apparent contradiction reconciled? In the most plain and satisfactory manner, by means of the angel's double interpretation of the heads; for if the seven heads be taken in the sense of seven mountains, (head in the Scripture style being a symbol of precedency as well as supremacy,) then the beast with all its heads and horns was altogether in futurity in the apostle's time, for the seven heads are the seven electorates of the German empire, and the ten horns the ten monarchies in the interest of the Latin Church. Finally, the beast is said to exist in the time of the vision; therefore the Roman empire, which governed the world, must be here alluded to; and consequently the phrase and yet is is a proof that, as the beast is the Latin kingdom, and this beast is said to have an existence in the time of the apostle, the empire of the Caesars, though generally known by the name of the Roman, is in a very proper sense the Latin kingdom, as the Latin was the language which prevailed in it. Hence the seven-headed and ten-horned beast is at once the representation of the ancient Latin power, of the Roman empire which succeeded it, and of the Latin empire which supports the Latin Church. Here is then the connection of the ancient Latin and Roman powers with that upon which the woman sits. She sits upon the beast that was and is not, because three of his heads represent the three forms of government which the ancient Latins had before they were subjugated by the Romans, viz., the regal power, the dictatorship, and the power of the praetors. She sits upon the beast which SHALL ASCEND out of the bottomless pit, because all his seven heads, taken in the sense of mountains were in futurity in the apostolic age. She sits upon the beast that yet is, because four of his heads represent four forms of government of the Roman or Latin empire now in existence, viz., the consulate, the triumvirate, the imperial power, and the patriciate. It is hence evident that the beast, in the largest acceptation of this term, is a symbol of the Latin power in general, from its commencement in Latinus to the end of time; his seven heads denoting seven kings or supreme forms of Latin government, during this period, king or kingdom, as we have already observed, being a general term in the prophetical writings for any kind of supreme governor or government, no matter by what particular name such may have been designated among men. Thus the Latin power from the time of Latinus to the death of Numitor was the beast under the dominion of his first head; from the death of Numitor to the destruction of Alba it was the beast under the dominion of his second head; from the destruction of Alba to the final subjugation of the Latins by the Romans the beast under the dominion of his third head. And as the four Roman forms of government which were subsequent to the final conquest of the Latins, were also Latin dominations, the Latin power under these forms of government was the beast under the dominion of his fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh heads. The beast of the bottomless pit, which followed the fall of all the heads of the sea beast or general Latin empire, is, according to the angel's interpretation, ogdoov, (basileuv,) an EIGHTH king, i.e., an eighth species of Latin power, or, in other words, a supreme form of Latin government essentially differing from all the foregoing; yet, as it is nominally the same with one of the preceding seven, it is not accounted an eighth head of the beast. The first beast of chap. xiii. 1 is a description of the eighth or last condition of the GENERAL Latin empire, and is said to arise ek thv qalasshv, out of the sea, because the heads are there taken in a double sense, sea being a general term to express the origin of every great empire which is raised up by the sword; but when (as in ver. 11) one of the heads of the sea beast (viz., that secular power which is still in being, and has supported the Latin Church for more than a thousand years) is peculiarly styled The Beast, the Holy Ghost, speaking of this secular Latin empire exclusively, declares it to be ek thv abussou, FROM the bottomless pit.

John EDWARD CLARKE. 

What Reformers Said About the Antichrist

Some might suppose that the interpretation we have given here concerning the Antichrist is of recent origin. Just the reverse is true. For centuries great Christian leaders and Reformers have held this position, as the evidence which we will now present abundantly shows.

We have seen that the early Christians believed that the Roman Empire under the Caesars would fall - the fall of which would bring on Antichrist. With the decline and fall of the Roman Empire came the rise of the Papacy. Though the picture did not become complete all at once, the passing of time has thoroughly demonstrated that the Papacy did become a persecuting power; did wear out the saints; did make blasphemous claims; did the things that the prophecies said the Antichrist would do. Those who understood the prophecies were not unaware of these things.

Froom says: "In the centuries just preceding the Reformation an ever-increasing number of pious persons began openly to express the conviction that the dire prophecies concerning the Antichrist were even then in the process of fulfilment. They felt that the "falling away" had already taken place. They declared that the Antichrist was already seated in the churchly temple of God, clothed in scarlet and purple" - the reference, of course, being to the Papacy. (Froom, 'The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers', vol.2, p.66).

Eberhard II, archbishop of Salzburg (1200-1246), for example, set forth the teaching that the little horn of Daniel 7 was the Pope, that the Pope was a wolf in shepherd's garb, the Antichrist, the son of perdition. He did not look into the future for the coming of an unidentified individual called the Antichrist. Instead, he looked back over the centuries since Rome's dismemberment and saw in the historical Papacy, a system, or succession; the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning the Antichrist. He was excommunicated by the Pope and died under the ban in 1246. (Ibid., vol.1, p.798).

John Foxe, noted writer of 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs', gives a list of learned men between 1331 and 1360 who contended against the false claims of the Pope. One of these, Michael of Cesena, who had numerous followers, not a few of whom were slain, declared the Pope "to be the Antichrist, and the church of Rome to be the whore of Babylon, drunk with the blood of the saints." (Foxe, 'Acts and Movements', p.445).

John Wyclif (sometimes spelled Wycliffe), noted English Reformer, taught that the persecuting "little horn" of Daniel had found fulfilment in the Papacy which arose out of the fourth kingdom, Rome. "Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist?" he asked. "In the Seventh Chapter of Daniel, the Antichrist is forcefully described as a horn arising in the time of the fourth kingdom... wearing out the saints of the most high." (Froom, vol.2, p.445). His book, the 'Mirror of the Antichrist', is filled with references to the Pope as the Antichrist.

From the ministry of Wyclif sprang the English "Lollards" which numbered in the hundreds of thousands. We give their testimony in the words of one of them, Lord Cobham. When brought before King Henry V and admonished to submit to the Pope as an obedient child, Cobham replied: "As touching the Pope and his spirituality, I owe him neither suit nor service, forasmuch as I know him by the Scriptures to be the great Antichrist, the son of perdition." (Guinness, 'Romanism and the Reformation', p.134). This was a century before Luther.

Walter Brute, noted scholar, prophetic expositor, and associate of Wyclif, was accused in 1391 of oftentimes and commonly claiming that "the Pope is the Antichrist and a seducer of the people." (Foxe, Vol.1, p.543).

Sir John Oldcastle (1360-1417), famous Christian of Herefordshire, spoke of the Pope in these words: "I know him by the Scriptures to be the great Antichrist, the Son of perdition... Rome is the very nest of the Antichrist, and out of that nest come all the disciples of him." He was sentenced to death for naming the Antichrist. Though the sentence was not immediately carried out, in 1417 he was dragged to St. Giles, suspended in chains, and slowly burned to death as his voice ascended in praise to God. (Ibid., p.636-641).

John Huss (1369-1415), born in Bohemia, was a well educated man who came under the influence of Wyclif's writings which caused him to break with the church of Rome. He labelled the Pope as the Antichrist of which the Scriptures had warned. His writings constantly refer to the Antichrist as the enemy of the church - not as a Jew, a pagan, or a Turk - but as a false confessor of the name of Christ.

Pope Martin V issued a bull in 1418 in which he ordered the punishment of both men or women who held to the teachings of Wyclif and Huss. Sixty miles from Prague, on a steep mountain, the city of Tabor was built to which the "Hussites" could "flee from the Antichrist." ('The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers', vol.2, p.121).

Huss himself was condemned as a heretic and delivered to the secular arm for execution. Accompanied by a guard of 1,000 armed men and a vast crowd of spectators, he was led through the churchyard where he saw a bonfire of his books in the public square. As he knelt and prayed, his hands were tied behind him and a rusty chain wound round his neck. Straw and wood were piled around him. The name Huss meant "goose" in the Bohemian tongue and at the place of execution Huss reportedly said: "This day ye are burning a goose; but from my ashes will arise a swan, which ye will not be able to roast" - an expression later quoted by Luther. "Huss began to sing," writes Froom, "but the wind swept the flames into his face and silenced his words. Only his lips moved - until they too were stilled in death for his stand against the Antichrist of Bible prophecy." (Ibid., p.116).

Martin Luther (1483-1546), while still a priest of the Romish church, disagreed with the practice of selling indulgences. At first, he sought reform within the church. But as he grew in the knowledge of Christ, he saw that reform would be impossible and that the message was to "come out of her." Being loosened from the bondages of this system, he began to wonder if the Pope was the Antichrist. Eventually this belief became pronounced. His friends, fearing for his safety, begged him to suppress his book 'To the German Nobility'. To this he replied on August 18, 1520: "We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist... personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to the Antichrist." (Ibid., p.256). Two months later, in October 1520, Luther's book 'On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church' was published. In this he spoke of the Papacy (the system, not necessarily the individual Pope who then reigned) as "nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of the very Antichrist... For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the Church; while he yet sits in the Church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny." (Luther, 'First Principles', pp.196-197).

In 1540, Luther wrote: "Oh Christ, my Lord, look down upon us and bring upon us thy day of judgment, and destroy the brood of Satan in Rome. There sits the Man, of whom the apostle Paul wrote (2 THESSALONIANS 2:3-4) that he will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God - that man of Sin, that Son of Perdition... he suppresses the Law of God and exalts his commandments above the commandments of God." (Froom, Vol.2, p.281).

To Luther, the scriptures did not portray the Antichrist as an infidel, or a super-politician, but as he that would rise within the Church realm; that is, "in the midst of Christendom." Concerning the man of sin, he pointed out that he "sitteth not in a stable of fiends, or in a swine-sty, or in a company of infidels, but in the highest and holiest place of all, namely, in the temple of God." Further, he explains: "Is not this to sit in the temple of God, to profess himself to be the Ruler in the whole Church? What is the temple of God? Is it stones and wood? Did not Paul say, "the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are?" To sit - what is it but to reign, to teach, and to judge? Who from the beginning of the Church has dared to call himself master of the whole Church but the Pope alone? None of the saints, none of the heretics ever uttered so horrible a word of pride." (Luther, 'Works', vol.2, p.385).

It is evident that Luther did not believe the Antichrist would be some lone individual at the end of time, for he said: "The Antichrist of whom Paul speaks now reigns in the court of Rome." Martin Luther understood that the Papacy was the Antichrist of prophecy! As the Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "These ideas became the dynamic force which drove Luther on in his contest with the Papacy." (Vol.2, p.61, Article: 'The Antichrist').

Among other leaders with Luther in the Reformation in Germany was Andreas Oslander (1498-1552), who also took a stand against the Roman Antichrist who spoke words against God and who had seated himself in God's temple. His concept of the Antichrist was not limited to one individual man. He believed it was the Papal ecclesiastical system which rose with the fall of Rome and would extend until the end time. He felt that the Papal contention, that the Antichrist was some future person, had caused people to look ahead for a fictitious Antichrist and thus overlook the real Antichrist at Rome, who had already exerted his influence for centuries. (Froom, 'The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers', vol.2, pp.296-299).

Nicolaus von Amsdorf (1483-1565), a close friend and zealous co-worker of Luther, believed that the Antichrist was to rise within the church realm and that "the pope is the real, true Antichrist and not the vicar of Christ." (Ibid., p.305).

Philipp Melanchton (1497-1560), also associated with Luther, said: "Since, it is certain that the pontiffs and the monks have forbidden marriage (cf. 1 TIMOTHY 4:1-3), it is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the Roman Pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is the very Antichrist... Likewise in 2 THESSALONIANS 2, Paul clearly says that the man of sin will rule in the church, exalting himself above the worship of God." (Ibid., p.288) etc.

Generally regarded as second only to Luther in influence is the eminent French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564). Originally a son of the Romish church, about 1532 he embraced the Protestant faith. His published works fill some fifty volumes. Concerning the Pope he said: "I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, infuriously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is the Antichrist - I deny him to be the successor of Peter... I deny him to be the head of the church." (Calvin, 'Tracts', Vol.1, pp.219-220).

In his classic 'Institutes' he wrote: "Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff the Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that Paul's words in 2 THESSALONIANS 2 are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." He then points out that the Antichrist was to conceal himself under the character of the church, "as under a mask", and shows how the Papacy has fulfilled the characteristics set forth by Paul.

John Knox (1505-1572), especially known for his Reformation work in Scotland, was persecuted from country to country until finally the affairs of Scotland were in Protestant hands. Knox preached that Romish traditions and ceremonies should be abolished as well as "that tyranny which the Pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that he should be acknowledged as "the very Antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." (Knox, 'The Zurich Letters', p.199).

In public challenge, Knox said: "As for your Roman Church, as it is now corrupted... I no more doubt but that it is the Synagogue of Satan; and the Head thereof, called the Pope, to be that man of Sin of whom the Apostle speaketh."

John Napier (1550-1617), noted Scottish mathematician and adherent of the Protestant cause, wrote a commentary on Revelation which the Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to as the first important Scottish work on the interpretation of Scripture. He taught that the Antichrist was the Pope - and not a Turk, a Jew, or someone outside the church realm - for he "must sit, saith Paul, in the Church of God." (Froom, 'The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers', vol.2, p.461).

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531) was a prominent figure in the work of the Reformation that broke out in Switzerland. On December 28, 1524, he very wisely pointed out that the Papacy was evil, but that it must be overthrown by the preaching of the Word in love and never by hatred. In reference to the Papacy, he said: "I know that in it works the might and power of the devil, that is, of the Antichrist... the Papacy has to be abolished... But by no other means can it be more thoroughly routed than by the Word of God (2 THESSALONIANS 2), because as soon as the world receives this in the right way, it will turn away from the Pope without compulsion." ('Principal Works of Zwingli', Vol.7, p.461).

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), friend of Zwingli, is regarded as one of the greatest prophetic expositors of the time. He explained that the kingdom of the Popes rose up among the divisions of Rome, and that the Pope is the Antichrist because he usurps the keys of Christ and his kingly and priestly authority. (Froom, vol.2, p.343).

Theodor Bibliander (1504-1564), called the "Father of Biblical Exegesis in Switzerland", a noted translator and Bible scholar, declared that the Papacy is the Antichrist predicted in 2 THESSALONIANS 2. (Bibliander, 'Relatio Fidells', p.58).

Alfonsus Conradus who fled from Italy to Switzerland because of his religious convictions, wrote a large commentary in 1560 on the book of Revelation in which he taught that the Roman Papacy is the Antichrist. He said it was useless to wait for the coming of the Antichrist in the future, for he had already been revealed in the Papacy. (Froom, vol.2, p.319).

William Tyndale (1485-1536), first translator of the Bible from Greek to English, Reformer and martyr, held that the Romish church was Babylon and that the Pope was the man of sin or the Antichrist, seated in the temple of God, i.e. the Church (Ibid., p.356). Repeatedly he cited 2 THESSALONIANS 2 in this connection.

Nicholas Ridley (1500-1555), a famed English martyr, and man of great learning, memorised most of the epistles in Greek and wrote numerous works. He spoke out on the deceptions of Romanism and that "the head, under satan, of all mischief is the Antichrist and his brood."

Before his martyrdom on October 16, 1555, Ridley wrote a farewell in which he said good-bye to his wife, brothers, sisters, and friends. He gave a review of his faith and spoke of how the Papacy had developed over the centuries. He spoke of Rome as "the seat of satan; and the bishop of the same, that maintaineth the abominations thereof, is the Antichrist himself indeed." (Letters of Bishop Ridley, letter 32).

A friend of Ridley, John Bradford (1510-1555), a noted preacher, was also martyred for his Protestant stand. On June 30, 1555, he was taken from prison late at night, all the prisoners tearfully bidding him farewell. As he passed along, great crowds were waiting, many weeping and praying for him.

Standing by the stake where he would be killed, he raised both hands and called England to repentance. He wrote a farewell in which he declared that he was condemned "for not acknowledging the Antichrist of Rome to be Christ's vicar - general and supreme head of the Catholic and universal church." He spoke of the Papacy as being "undoubtedly that great Antichrist, of whom the apostles do so much admonish us." (Froom. vol.2, p.377).

John Hooper (1495-1555) was one of the first arrested for his Protestant faith when Mary came to the throne in England. He was condemned because he would not accept the "wicked papistical religion of the bishop of Rome." As a throng of 7,000 gathered - many of them weeping - Hooper was bound to a stake and slowly burned while he prayed. He believed that the so-called Vicar of Christ was really the great and principal enemy of Christ, that in him were found the very properties of the Antichrist, and that these things were openly known to all men that were not blinded with the smoke of Rome. (Ibid., pp.381-382).

Hugh Latimer (1490-1555) was won to the Protestant faith and became a fervent preacher with no time for hypocrisy or tyranny. In commenting on the words of Paul in 2 THESSALONIANS 2, he said in 1552: "The Lord will not come till 'the swerving from faith cometh': which thing is already done and past." The falling away was not some future thing to Latimer. Nor was the man of sin an individual yet to come, for speaking of his day, Latimer said: "The Antichrist is known throughout all the world." (Ibid., p.371).

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556), writing in 1550 said of the Papacy: "I know how the Antichrist hath obscured the glory of God, and the true knowledge of His Word, overcasting the same with mists and clouds of error and ignorance through false glosses and interpretation...

The Antichrist of Rome... hath extolled himself above his fellow bishops, as God's vicar, yea, rather as God Himself; and taketh upon him authority over kings and emperors, and sitteth in the temple of God, that is, in the consciences of men, and causeth his decrees to be more regarded than God's laws; yea, and for money he dispenseth with God's laws, and all other, giving men license to break them." (Cranmer, 'Works', vol.1, pp.6-7).

After quoting from the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, he says: "Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of the Antichrist, and the Pope to be the very Antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers and strong reasons." (Ibid., pp.62-63).

Cranmer was martyred for this Protestant faith. In his dying testimony he said: "And as for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy and the Antichrist, with all his false doctrine." He was then led to the fire, said a few more words, and finally the flames left him a blackened corpse.

Thomas Becon (1511-1567), author of numerous books on Popery, wrote: "We desire of our heavenly Father, that the Antichrist with his kingdom, which hath seduced, and daily doth seduce... may shortly be slain and brought unto confusion 'with the breath of the Lord's mouth'...that 'that sinful man, the son of perdition, which is an adversary, and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped' may no longer 'sit in the temple of god, boasting himself to be God'." (Froom, vol.2, p.403).

One of the great intellectuals of the English reformation was John Jewel (1522-1571). He listed some of the misconceptions held by the Roman Catholic church as to the Antichrist: that he would be a Jew of the tribe of Dan, born in Babylonia or Syria, or be Mohammed, or that he would overthrow Rome or rebuild Jerusalem, etc. Then he commented: "These tales have been craftily devised to beguile our eyes, that, whilst we think upon these guises, and so occupy ourselves in beholding a shadow or probable conjecture of the Antichrist, he which is the Antichrist indeed may unawares deceive us." He was referring to the Papacy.

He then mentions that if we took the term "man of sin" by itself, we might suppose that an individual man is meant. But taking all of the evidence into consideration, we understand that a succession of men is the proper meaning. He pointed out that pagan Rome was the hindering power that prevented the development of the Antichrist and that "Paul saith, the Antichrist shall not come yet; for the emperor letteth him: the emperor shall be removed; and then shall the Antichrist come." This system of apostasy shall continue until it is destroyed at the Lord's coming. "He meaneth not, therefore, that the Antichrist shall be any one man only, but one estate or kingdom of men, and a continuance of some one power and tyranny in the church." (Jewel, 'An Exposition Upon the Two Epistles to the Thessalonians', vol.2, p.813).

Jewel mentioned some of the Papal claims: that the Pope is lord over all the world, king of kings, and that every knee should bow to him; that his authority reaches into heaven and down into hell; that he can command the angels of God; that he can forgive sins, etc. "This is the Antichrist. This is his power. Thus shall he work and make himself manifest. So shall he sit in the temple of God - as though to take God's place."

Twenty-two of the sermons of Edwin Sandys (1519-1588) have been preserved to our day. In his sermon on ISAIAH 55:1: "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters... come ye, buy... without money and without price", he contrasted this invitation with that of the Papal Antichrist who requires money for his blessing: "He that sitteth in the temple of God, and termeth himself Christ's vicar, doth in like sort offer unto the people bread, water, wine, milk, pardon of sins, grace, mercy, and eternal life; but not freely: he is a merchant, he giveth nothing, and that is nothing which he selleth... his holy water cannot wash away the spots... his blasphemous masses do not appease, but provoke God's wrath... his rotten relics cannot comfort you... by his Latin service ye cannot be edified, or made wiser. Yet this trumpery they sell for money, and upon this trash they cause silly men to waste their substance... Thus you see a manifest difference between Christ and the Antichrist." ('The Sermons of Edwin Sandys', pp.11-12).

William Fluke (1538-1589), an English puritan, pointed to Rome as the seat of the Antichrist (which was taken after the seat of the civil empire was removed) and that the Antichrist was a succession of men, not a single individual. By looking at Rome, he says, "It is easy to find the person by St. Paul's description; and this note especially, that excludeth the heathen tyrants, 'He shall sit in the temple of God': which we see to be fulfilled in the Pope... the Pope is that 'Man of Sin', and 'Son of Perdition', the adversary that lifteth up himself 'above all that is called God'; and shall be destroyed 'by the glory of his coming'."

In 1611, what is known as the "King James Version" of the Bible was issued and has ever since been in wide circulation and use. The translators, men of learning and with a knowledge of history, recognised that the Papacy was the man of sin and that the open publication of scriptural truth was dealing a great blow to him. Thus they wrote in their dedication to King James: "...The zeal of your majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom by writing a defence of the truth which hath given such a blow to that man of sin as will not be healed." It is evident that these men did not think the man of sin was an individual to be revealed at some future time!

King James (1566-1625) himself believed that following the removal of the Roman emperors, the reign of the Antichrist began. This was, of course, a reference to the rise of the Papacy which he believed to be the Antichrist and Mystery of Iniquity. (Froom, vol.2, pp.540-541).

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) is well known in history because of his scientific research, especially in connection with the laws of gravitation. He was a writer, mathematician, philosopher, and also a student of Bible prophecy! His writings on prophecy - from a study of 42 years - entitled 'Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John' was published six years after his death. Newton linked the little horn of Daniel 7 with the Papacy, rising among the ten kingdoms into which the Roman empire fell. "But it was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten kingdoms... By its eyes it was a Seer; and by its mouth speaking great things and changing times and laws, it was a Prophet as well as a King. And such a Seer, a Prophet and a King, is the church of Rome. A Seer... is a Bishop in the literal sense of the word; and this Church claims the universal Bishopric. With his mouth he gives laws to kings and nations as an Oracle; and pretends to Infallibility, and that his dictates are binding to the whole world; which is to be a Prophet in the highest degree." (Newton, 'Observations on the Prophecies', p.75).

Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1725), "early became convinced that the Pope was the predicted Antichrist." Through his books which were translated into many languages, he had a strong influence upon a number of people, including Wesley.

John Wesley (1703-1791), founder of Methodism, whose ministry has affected the lives of multiplied thousands, believed the man of sin had found fulfilment in the "Romish Papacy." (Wesley, 'Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament', pp.290).

In 1754, Wesley wrote these words concerning the Papacy: "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is... that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped... claiming the highest power, and highest honour... claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." (quoted in the 'Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms', p.110).

Froom sums up the evidence in these words: "We have seen the remarkable unanimity of belief of Reformation leaders in every land that the Antichrist of prophecy is not to be a single individual - some sort of superman - who will wrack and well-nigh wreck the world just before the second advent of Christ. Instead, they found that it was a vast system of apostasy, or rather, an imposing counterfeit of truth which had developed within the jurisdiction of that divinely appointed custodian of truth, the Christian Church." (Froom, vol.2, p.793).

A number of notable books on the Papal Antichrist were written during the centuries that followed the Reformation. We will mention two: 'Roman Antichrist', written in 1612 by Andreas Helwig of Berlin (the first according to Froom, as well as Elliott, to link the number 666 with the Papal designation "Vicarius Filii Dei") and 'Dissertations on the Prophecies', written by Thomas Newton in 1748, which showed that the prophecy of the man of sin had found fulfilment in the Roman Papacy.

This same point was emphasised in the Protestant Creeds. The 'Westminster Confession of Faith' used by the Church of England and later by the Presbyterian Church says: "There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and Son of Perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God." (Chapter 25, Section 6). This same basic statement, with difference only in wording, is found in the 'Savoy Declaration' of the Congregational Church, the 'Baptist Confession' of 1689, and in the 'Philadelphia Confession of Faith'.

The 'Morland Confession' of 1508 and 1535 (which represented the beliefs of the Waldensian Brethren) says in article 8: "That the Antichrist, that man of sin, doth sit in the Temple of God, that is, in the Church, of whom the Prophets, and Christ and His Apostles foretold, admonishing all the godly, to beware of him and his errors, and not suffer themselves to be drawn aside from the Truth."

The Reformation work in Switzerland produced the 'Helvetic Confession' in 1536 in which the Papacy is mentioned as the predicted Antichrist. The Lutheran Statement contained in the 'Smalcald Articles' says: "The Pope is the very Antichrist, who exalteth himself above, and opposeth himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God..." These Creeds represented the belief of multiplied thousands.

As churches were established in America, it was this same view concerning the Papacy that was held. In 1680 the churches of New England drew up a Confession of faith which stated that Jesus Christ is the head of the church and not the Pope of Rome who is indeed the Antichrist and the Son of Perdition. "This", writes Froom, "was the commonly accepted American position." (Ibid. vol.3, p.111). As Samuel Lee (1625-1691), a learned minister of New Bristol, Rhode Island, said: "It is agreed among all maintainers of the Evangelical Church that the Roman Pontiff is the Antichrist." (Lee, 'The Cutting Off of the Antichrist', p.1).

John Cotton (1584-1652), a Puritan minister of Plymouth and Boston, taught that REVELATION 13 was a picture of the Papacy. Cotton is regarded as America's first prophetic expositor. Roger Williams (1603-1683), founder of Rhode Island and pastor of the first Baptist church in America, likewise, spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself... speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws: but he is the son of perdition (2 THESSALONIANS 2)." (Froom, vol.3, p.52).

Cotton Mather (1663-1728), a Congregational theologian, in his book 'Fall of Babylon' asked the question: "Is the Pope of Rome to be looked upon as the Antichrist, whose coming and reigning was foretold in the ancient oracles?" To this he answered: "The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church; and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvellously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvellous blindness upon them." (Ibid., vol.3, p.113).

Samuel Cooper (1725-1783), while delivering a series of lectures at Harvard, said: "If the Antichrist is not to be found in the chair of St. Peter, he is nowhere to be found." He believed the Antichrist was the succession of bishops in Rome. (Cooper, 'A Discourse on the Man of Sin', p.12).

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), a famous revivalist and third president of Princeton, identified the "Pope and his clergy" as the power prophesied in 2 THESSALONIANS, DANIEL 7 and REVELATION 13, and 17. His grandson, Timothy Dwight (1752-1817), also a minister, spoke of how the Popes "have seated themselves in the Church, or temple of God, and shewed that they were God, by assuming powers, which belong only to God: the powers, for instance, of making laws to bind the consciences of men; or pardoning sin; of forming religious establishments; of introducing new laws for the conduct and government of the church... thus have they exalted themselves above all that is called God, or that is worshipped." (Dwight, 'A Sermon Preached at Northampton', p.27).

After many pages of carefully documented proof for his statement, Froom concludes: "The futurist view of an individual ... The Antichrist, was unknown among the Protestants of North America prior to the nineteenth century"! (Froom, vol.3, p.257).