Studies in the Gospel Message
THE subject of the Sabbath-school lesson for November 8 is, The Kingdom of Antichrist. We have seen clearly that the real purpose of the vision of the seventh chapter of Daniel is to reveal the location of the territory, the time of the rise, the duration of the supremacy, and the nature of the work of the power symbolized by the little horn. It is plain enough that the papacy is the great fact of history which answers to the prophecy concerning the little horn. It fully meets all the specifications of the prophecy, and this is true of no other power which has ever appeared in history. It arose at the time indicated by the prophecy, it secured its territory as declared by the prophecy, it reigned over the kings of the earth for just the length of time specified by the prophecy, and it has done just the work foretold by the prophecy. To say that the prophecy concerning the little horn is not fulfilled in the papacy is equivalent to the assertion that there can be no certainty in our application of the fulfillment of prophecy. The right application of this prophecy is established beyond a reasonable doubt. It is equally clear that Paul’s prophecy of “the falling away” and the revelation of “the man of sin,” as recorded in 2 Thess. 2: 1–12, finds its fulfillment in the papacy. In Daniel’s prophecy we see the papacy as a kingdom, with a limited territory, for it was a “little horn,” and the pope as a king among kings. In Paul’s prophecy we see the papacy as an ecclesiastical power, and the pope as a priest in the temple of God. It requires both prophecies, supplemented by the further delineation given in The Revelation, to set forth fully the papacy as a politico-ecclesiastical power. It is time now to take a closer view of the twofold character of the papacy, and to note the foundation principle upon which the whole structure rests. The ground is briefly but comprehensively covered in the following paragraph from the writings of Rev. J. A. Wylie:— What, then, is the papacy? Is it a purely spiritual society, or a purely secular society?—It is neither. The papacy is a mixed society: the secular element enters quite as largely into its constitution as does the spiritual. It is a compound of both elements in equal proportions; and, being so, must necessarily possess secular as well as spiritual jurisdiction, and be necessitated to adopt civil as well as ecclesiastical action. But how does it appear that the Church of Rome combines in one essence the secular and spiritual elements? for the point lies here. It appears from the fundamental axiom on which she rests. There are but a few links in the chain of her infernal logic; but these few links are of adamant; and they so bind up together, in one composite body, the two principles, the spiritual and the temporal, and, by consequence, the two jurisdictions, that the moment Rome attempts to cut in twain what her logic joins in one, she ceases to be popedom Her syllogism is indestructible if the minor proposition be but granted; and the minor proposition, be it remembered, is her fundamental axiom: CHRIST IS THE VICAR OF GOD, AND, AS SUCH, POSSESSES HIS POWER; BUT THE POPE IS THE VICAR OF CHRIST; THEREFORE THE POPE IS GOD’S VICAR, AND POSSESSES HIS POWER. To Christ, as the vicar of God, all power, spiritual and temporal, has been delegated. All spiritual power has been delegated to him as head of the church; and all temporal power has been delegated to him for the good of the church. This power has been delegated a second time from Christ to the pope. To the pope all spiritual power has been delegated, as head of the church, and God’s vicegerent on earth; and all temporal power also, for the good of the church. Such is the theory of the popedom. This conclusively establishes that the papacy is of a mixed character. We but perplex ourselves when we think or speak of it simply as religion. It contains the religious element, no doubt; but it is not a religion; it is a scheme of domination of a mixed character, partly spiritual and partly temporal; and its jurisdiction must be of the same mixed kind with its constitution. To talk of the popedom wielding a purely spiritual authority only, is to assert what her fundamental principles repudiate. These principles compel her to claim the temporal also. The two authorities grow out of the same fundamental axiom, and are so woven together in the system, and so indissolubly knit the one to the other, that the papacy must part with both or none. The popedom, then, stands alone. In genius, in constitution, and in prerogative, it is diverse from all other societies. The Church of Rome is a temporal monarchy as really as she is an ecclesiastic body; and in token of her hybrid character, her head, the pope, displays the emblems of both jurisdictions,—the keys in one hand, the sword in the other. All the claims of the papacy follow logically from the one fundamental claim, that the pope is the vicar of Christ, the vicegerent of the Son of God. If this proposition be granted, it will be impossible to refuse consent to the whole of the elaborate system. If this proposition is successfully refuted, then the whole system falls to the ground. Here therefore is the one spot where the death blow may be inflicted. And this tremendous claim, with all its most tremendous consequences, is founded upon a manifest perversion of a statement of Jesus, which, when rightly understood, will completely overthrow the foundation proposition of the papacy. Here is the statement: To Peter who had just confessed to the union of divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus, the Son of man and the Son of God, Jesus said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” It happens that in the original the words “Peter” and “rock” closely resemble each other, and the Church of Rome, by that method of theological jugglery to which it is no stranger, has interpreted this passage as though it read, “Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my church.” Thus the teaching of Jesus that he would build his church in the earth upon that mysterious union of divinity and humanity which he had wrought out in himself has been distorted into a declaration that lost humanity itself would be the foundation. The apostle Peter himself never assumed that he had been appointed by his Master as his visible representative, his vicegerent, but designated himself simply as “an elder,” and he exhorted the other elders not to be “lords over God’s heritage,” but to be “ensamples to the flock.” All this fiction about a divinely established vicegerency is the invention of a much later period than apostolic times, and this quoting Scripture to prove it evidently originated in the mind of him who quoted Scripture to Jesus in the wilderness as being a sufficient excuse for doing his bidding. But it ought not to escape our attention that this very claim that the pope is the vicar of the Son of God, the vicegerent of Christ, is the testimony of the papacy to the fact that the pope is antichrist. It is certainly a remarkable thing that the very title claimed by the pope as expressing his divine right to the position of head of the universal church, with unlimited authority, both spiritual and temporal, is in reality the name applied by the apostle John to the one who would deny the very foundation truth upon which Jesus declared that he would build his church. He who denies that union of divinity with humanity which is revealed in Jesus, is said to be “the antichrist.” See 1 John 4: 1–3 and 2 John 7, R. V. Now this word “antichrist” is formed by placing the prefix “anti” before the word “Christ.” This prefix is taken from the Greek language. But we have another prefix taken from the Latin language which corresponds to the primary meaning of “anti,” and that is “vice.” From this comes our word “vicar.” Thus when the pope, using the official language of the Roman Catholic Church, claims that he is the vicar of Christ, he in this very claim declares that he is the vice-Christ, or the antichrist. And this use of the prefix “anti” as meaning “in the place of” is not limited to this one word “antichrist.” In Acts 13: 7, R. V., Sergius Paulus is said to be “the proconsul,” the man who acts in the place of the consul, and the prefix “anti” is used here before the word meaning “consul.” In Matt. 2: 22 it is said that “Archelaus was reigning . . . in the room of his father Herod,” and the word here translated “in the room of” is “anti.” Furthermore the papacy exactly fulfills the specification of the antichrist of the Scripture inasmuch as it emphatically denies that union of divinity with humanity which brings an indwelling Christ into the heart of every true believer. It is true that “anti” may also mean “against,” and it is quite possible that both meanings should be attached to this6prefix in the word “antichrist,” but it is evident that the method by which the pope is “against” Christ is, not by avowed opposition, but as a professed friend, by putting himself “in the place of” Christ. We must now notice one thing more in Paul’s prophecy concerning “the man of sin.” It is declared of him that he “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped.” The word here rendered “opposeth” is in other places in the New Testament (Luke 13: 17; 21: 15; Phil. 1: 28, etc.) translated “adversary.” And in the Greek translation of Zech. 3: 1 this same word is used to represent the Hebrew word rendered “to resist,” the marginal reading of which is “to be his adversary.” But the Hebrew word rendered “to resist” is the verbal form of the word rendered “Satan” in the preceding line. Satan, the adversary, was standing at his right hand to be his adversary, or to act the part of Satan. From this use of the word we may conclude that in Paul’s prophecy it is affirmed of “the man of sin” that he “acts the part of Satan by exalting himself above all that is called God.” And this is in perfect harmony with the purpose of Satan, who said, “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.” It thus appears that the whole system of the papacy is simply the outworking upon the earth of the plan of Satan to take the place which belongs to the Son of God, and that the pope is in truth the vicar of Satan instead of the vicar of Christ. Here we have Satan’s answer to the incarnation of Christ. These conclusions are certainly worthy of the most serious consideration. We conclude, then, that the kingdom of the so-called vicar of Christ is in reality the kingdom of Satan, and that the so-called only true church is in reality “the synagogue of Satan.” Who will rally to preach the genuine gospel of the kingdom of God, and to proclaim the saving truth of the union of divinity and humanity as the foundation upon which the true church of Christ is built?