THE FUTURE SEAT OF THE PAPACY.
By Editor
A CANDID correspondent sent us some time ago the following question regarding the “Seat of the Papacy,” which we hoped would be answered in the articles by “Abdiel,” but the purpose of his writing did not seem to include that. We therefore reply briefly. Our querist writes: “In your last issue [October 3] you say (page 571): ‘The removal of the residence of the church from Rome would be fatal to the maintenance of this position. The pope would then no longer preside over the bishopric of Rome,’ etc., etc. “What then happened to the Church of Rome, or the Papacy, or its claim as Roman Catholic Church when the popes lived for seventy years at Avignon in France? or when Napoleon I captured the pope and took him from Rome to Fontainebleau? or when Pius IX had to flee from Rome in 1849 and resided for a long time at Gaeta? or when other popes at frequent intervals refused to live at Rome during the Middle Ages, owing to dissensions between them and the Roman people? J. J.” The statement was not ours, but another’s based on the argument that the church is founded on St. Peter. The argument is not strong in the light of history. To us it seems that Rome’s claim would be still stronger and all-inclusive if the seat of the Papacy were transferred to Jerusalem, where the first church after the crucifixion was raised up, and that by Peter as the chief spokesman. There is only tradition to show that Peter was ever at Rome; there is positive Bible evidence in abundance that he was a mighty man at Jerusalem. Then, too, there would be an additional argument in fixing the Papal throne in Jerusalem, “the Holy City,” the city where David and Solomon dwelt, where Christ preached, where He died and was buried; from which for centuries the waves of the Crusaders endeavored to beat back the infidel. If the true bishop and head of the church could reign at Avignon and Gaeta, he could certainly reign in Jerusalem, the very center of the theological world. And this has been suggested of late years by thinking, scholarly men. The reasons are that as long as the Papacy has its throne in Europe, it will be a source of trouble and contention, unless Italy makes uncompromising surrender. This is not even hoped for. The Turk, under pressure from the Powers, and to aid failing finances, could be induced to sell Palestine, or Judea, for the Papal Seat. Let that be done, and from all over Christendom nations would vie with each other in putting the Papacy in a position which would rival all that which could be imagined elsewhere. A St. Peter’s would not be immediately built, but a larger “Christ’s Cathedral,” or “Cathedral of the Sacred Heart,” or under some other equally potent and inclusive name, would be projected on a scale to astonish the world. All international troubles, so far as the Papal temporal power is concerned, it would be argued, would be at last settled, and the Papacy would be in a position to treat impartially all nations, and act as arbiter on all religio-political questions. Is there Bible evidence for this?—We suggest two scriptures as having a bearing upon that point. The first is Isa. 2:2-5. That passage predicts the false cry of peace which will be raised because of the seeming exaltation of nominal Christianity; when many people shall say, “Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,” etc. All this sounds good; but note, first, that it is the “many people” (not God) which raise this cry; secondly, that this peace cry is the very opposite of that which this world shall know in “the last days” (Joel 3:9-12; 1 Thess. 5:1-3); and, thirdly, the prophet tells us in the very context that because of this false cry God has forsaken His professed people, “because they are filled with customs from the East, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they strike hands with the children of foreigners.” See Isa. 2:6-11, A. R. V. The head of this movement is a false representative of Jehovah who deceives the world. The second scripture is that at this very time in the world’s history the apostate church will say: “I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.” And this is just before her final doom, as Isaiah portrays. The true church is then suffering persecution. Rev. 12:17. Another suggestion: The true “King of the World” is God. See Ps. 48:2; Eze. 1:4, 5, 26. The pseudo king, or “god of the world” is Lucifer, who declared, “I will sit upon the mount of congregation in the utermost parts of the north; . . . I will make myself like the Most High.” Isa. 14:12-14. Satan has his vicar among the children of the flesh, an earthly “king of the world.” This king is described in Dan. 11:36-39. Compare with this 2 Thess. 2:3-7, a clear setting forth in both cases of the Papacy. But this king of the north “shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain [Jerusalem], yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” Dan. 11:45. Compare with “broken without hand” (Dan. 8:25), and the destruction of the last symbol of Rome, broken by a stone cut from the mountain “without hands” (Dan. 2:45). In the restoration of this abnormal union of Church and State with all its awful consequences, the powers of earth will unite with seeming success for a little while, but a success foretokening eternal destruction. Read Revelation 17. The subject is worthy of careful study, in which we shall see wonderful developments.