Is Not Rome the Harlot? Study
No. 248
I |
n spite of the overwhelming
consensus of persecuted Christians for many hundreds of years, some today are
questioning whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is the great whore of
Revelation. The historical proof is
compelling. Let’s look at what the
Waldenses and others have said.
“Now it is certain, first, that since the tenth century, wherein
Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans, called the Pope Antichrist, in a full Council at
Rheims, nothing has been more ordinary than to give him this title. The
Antipopes of the eleventh century very lavishly bestowed it upon one another.
This example was followed in the twelfth century, and has never since been
discontinued till the time of the Reformation; a vast number of writers having
set themselves against the Pope and the Papacy, openly proclaiming him to be
the Antichrist, and his Church the Great Whore, and Mystical Babylon” (Peter
Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont and of
the Albigenses, I, 1692, 1821 edition, p. 281).
“The result of our examination
is the solemn conviction . . . that the Romish, so far from being the true
church, is the bitterest foe of all true churches of Christ — that she
possesses no claim to be called a Christian Church — but, with the long line of
corrupt and wicked men who have worn her triple crown, that she is Antichrist.
. . . This identity of papal Rome with antichrist was maintained by Luther,
Melancthon, Calvin, and all the continental reformers; by Latimer . . . and all
the British reformers: by the illustrious Sir Issac Newton, Mede, Whiston,
Bishop Newton, Lowth, Daubuz, Jurieu, Vitringa, Bedell, and a host of equally
pious, illustrious, and learned names. The same testimony has been borne in the
authorized doctrinal standards of the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran,
Methodist, Baptist, and other churches both of Europe and America. The same
doctrine is still taught in the theological school of Geneva by the illustrious
D’Aubigne and Gaussen, and with but here and there a solitary exception, by all
the most learned professors and clergymen of the present day, connected with
the various evangelical denominations of Protestant Christians” (John Dowling, The
History of Romanism, 2nd edition, 1852, pp. 646-647).
“Tergandus, [Ninth Century] Bishop of Treves, called the Pope
Antichrist, yea, a wolf, and Rome, Babylon” (Martyrs Mirror, 5th English
edition, p. 240).
“Arnulphus, [Tenth Century] Bishop of Orleans, who had the greatest
reputation of any man of his time, solidly maintained, from the canons and
customs of the Church, that the Pope’s sentence was not to be waited for in
that case . . . ‘To desire an answer
from him, is to consult the stones . . . . Who do you think that man is, who
sits in his high chair? he is, answers he, the Antichrist, who sits in the
temple of God, and shews himself as God.’ And the rest of his discourse is a
sufficient evidence that he took the Pope to be the Antichrist, and that he
acknowledged that the mystery of iniquity was then coming in upon the Church”
(Allix, p. 199).
“France, which first bestowed upon the Popes the temporal dominions
they now enjoy, long since owned the Pope to be the Antichrist. For Gregory I,
having declared, in twelve several letters written against the Patriarch of
Constantinople, who assumed the title of Universal Bishop, that whoever claimed
that title for himself was either the Antichrist, or the forerunner of him; it
was not long after, that Pope Boniface III persuaded Phocas to give him the
title of Universal, which all his successors took up afterwards with joy, and
affected to use it: for which reason the French, fearing lest they should fail
of the respect which they had for St. Gregory, if they should accuse themselves
of having so often made use of a false way of reasoning, at last called the
Pope Antichrist. They were not therefore Manichees that were come from the
east, in the eleventh century, to settle themselves in the west, who first set
on foot this accusation; but they were the French, who, in a full council at
Rheims, after the tenth century, called the Pope Antichrist” (Allix, pp. 198,
199, 200).
Berenger of Tours (Eleventh Century), denounced Rome’s dogmas and
maintained that the Roman Church was the See of Satan (George Faber, The
History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, London: R.B. Seeley and W.
Burnside, 1838, p. 159).
In the Twelfth Century, several groups of Bible believers labeled Rome
as the Harlot of Revelation and the Antichrist: Petrobusians, Paulicians,
Henricians, Arnoldists, and Paterines (Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of
the Ancient Churches; Robinson, Ecclesiastical Researches, etc.).
The Waldensians identified the Pope as the Antichrist. In 1100, the
Waldensian document, Noble Lesson, identified the Pope as the
“Antichrist, the predicted murderer of the Saints, hath already appeared in his
true character, seated monarchally in the seven-hilled city.” “Of the
authenticity of the Noble Lesson, the beautifully simple production of a
confessedly simple people, there can, I think with the learned Raynouard, be no
reasonable doubt entertained” (Faber, The History of the Ancient Vallenses
and Albigenses, p. 371).
“A Treatise Concerning Antichrist,” dated roughly 1160, identified the
Pope of Rome as the Antichrist. George Faber identifies this as a production of
Peter Valdo (Waldo). The manuscript was found among the Waldensians in the
year 1658, by Sir Samuel Morland, who was appointed by British authorities to
aid the Waldensians in their bitter persecutions. Morland brought the
manuscript, “A Treatise Concerning Antichrist,” and packets of other
manuscripts back to England and deposited them in the University Library at
Cambridge. They have since mysteriously disappeared, but many of the most
important documents were copied and published prior to their loss.
According to Waldensian documents, the Antichrist’s first work is that
the Eucharist is idolatry because he worships the wafer equally with God and
Christ, prohibiting the adoration of God alone. His second work is: that he
robs and deprives Christ of the merits of Christ, with the whole sufficiency of
grace and justification and regeneration and remission of sins and
sanctification and confirmation and spiritual nourishment; and imputes and
attributes them, to his own authority, or to a form of words, or to his own
performances, or to the saints and their intercession, or to the fire of
Purgatory. His third work is that he attributes the regeneration of the Holy
Spirit to a dead outward faith; baptizing children in that faith; and teaching,
that, by the mere work of the outward consecration of baptism, regeneration may
be procured. This fourth work is that he rests the whole religion of the people
upon his Mass. His fifth work is that he does everything to be seen, and to
glut his insatiable avarice. His sixth work is that he allows of manifest sins,
without ecclesiastical censure. His seventh work is that he defends his unity
not by the Holy Spirit, but by the secular power. His eighth work is that he
hates, and persecutes, and searches after, and robs, and destroys, the members
of Christ.
These things and many others are the cloak and vestment of Antichrist,
by which he covers his lying wickedness, lest he should be rejected as a pagan.
But there is no other cause of idolatry, than a false opinion of grace and
truth and authority and invocation and intercession, which this Antichrist has
taken away from God, and which he has ascribed to ceremonies and authorities
and a man’s own works and saints and purgatory (Faber, The History of the
Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, pp. 379-384).
In 1206, at the conference of Montreal, the Albigenses made the
following confession: “That the Church of Rome was not the spouse of Christ,
but the Church of confusion, drunk with the blood of the martyrs. That the
polity of the Church of Rome was neither good nor holy, nor established by
Jesus Christ” (Allix, p. 178). The Albigenses “expressly declared that they
received the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, and that they rejected
every doctrine that was not grounded upon, or authorized by them, or was
contrary to any one point of doctrine that may be found there. According to
which maxim, they confessed that they rejected and condemned all the
ceremonies, traditions, and ordinances of the Church of Rome, which they
declared to be a den of thieves, and the whore that is spoken of in the
Revelation” (Allix, p. 194).
The Bohemians, a colony of Waldenses in Bohemia, held the following
beliefs, according to their Roman Inquisitor. This description was given in
the Fourteenth Century but uses material from the Thirteenth Century: “The
first error, saith he, is that the Church of Rome is not the Church of Jesus
Christ, but an assembly of wicked men, and the whore that sits upon the beast
in the Revelation . . . . They declare the Pope to be the head and ringleader
of all errors” (Allix, pp. 242-259).
John Huss (1373-1415), in a letter unto the people of Prague: “The more
circumspect you ought to be, for that Antichrist laboureth the more to trouble
you. Death shall swallow up many, but of the elect children of God the kingdom
of God draweth near . . . . Know ye, well-beloved, that
Antichrist, being stirred up against you, deviseth divers persecutions” (John
Foxe, Acts and Monuments, 8th edition 1641, III, p. 497, 498).
Many Lollards of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries held that the
Pope was Antichrist and identified the papacy with Revelation 17 (Allix,
p. 230; John Thomson, The Later Lollards, pp. 76, 80, etc.).
All of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation considered the Pope
the Antichrist, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Huss. Their successors in the Sixteenth,
Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Centuries persisted in this. Rome was
considered the Mother of Harlots. The Westminster Confession of Faith,
the most important Protestant Statement of Belief, 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” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1648, chapter 25, section
6).
On December 1, 1520, Martin Luther published two tracts in answer to
the Bull of Leo X, one of which was entitled, “Martin Luther against the
Execrable Bull of Antichrist.” He charged the Pope and his cardinals of acting
“the undoubted part of the Antichrist of the Scriptures.”
William Tyndale, the father of our old English Bible, identified the
Pope as the Antichrist in his treatise, The Practice of Prelates.
Tyndale also labeled the Pope the Antichrist in the Preface to the 1534 edition
of his New Testament. “Though the Bishop of Rome and his sects give Christ
these names (His rightful names), yet in that they rob Him of the effect and
take the signification of His names unto themselves, and make of Him but a
hypocrite, as they themselves be, they be the right Antichrists, and deny both
the Father and the Son; for they deny the witness that the Father bore unto His
Son, and deprive the Son of all power and glory that His Father gave Him”
(William Tyndale).
On September 9, 1560, Pastor Jean Louis Paschale of Calabria, just
before he was burned alive in the presence of Pope Pius IV in Rome, turned to
the pope and “arraigned him as the enemy of Christ, the persecutor of his
people, and the Antichrist of Scripture, and concluded by summoning him and all
his cardinals to answer for their cruelties and murders before the throne of the
Lamb” (J.A. Wylie, History of the Waldenses, ca. 1860, p. 120).
Bishop Nicholas Ridley, who was burnt during the reign of Queen Mary in
1556, then declared: “The See of Rome is the seat of Satan, and the bishop of
the same, that maintained the abominations thereof, is Antichrist himself
indeed; and for the same causes this See at this day is the same that St. John
calls, in his Revelation, Babylon, or the whore of Babylon, and spiritual Sodom
and Egypt, the mother of fornications and abominations on earth.”
William Latimer, a Greek scholar who loved the Word of God during the
time of Tyndale, said, “Do you not know that the Pope is very Antichrist, whom
the Scripture speaketh of? But beware what you say; for if you shall be
perceived to be of that opinion, it will cost you your life. I have been an
officer of his but I have given it up, and defy him and all his works”
(Christopher Anderson, Annals of the English Bible, I, pp. 35, 36).
In his 1893 work titled, Union with Rome, Christopher
Wordsworth, bishop of Lincoln in the Church of England stated the view which
prevailed among Protestants at that time: “. . . we tremble at the sight, while
we read the inscription, emblazoned in large letters, ‘Mystery, Babylon the
Great,’ written by the hand of St. John, guided by the Holy Spirit of God, on
the forehead of the Church of Rome” (Wordsworth, Union with Rome, p.
62).
“In common with most of the learned Divines of the Church of England
since the Reformation and — as we have seen — in accordance with the teaching
of her Homilies, we object to Reunion with the Papacy because the Church of
Rome is the Babylon of the Revelation.” (The Secret History of the Oxford
Movement, by Walter Walsh, 1899, p. 370).
— from the Internet W
Dave
Hunt’s excellent 552-page book, A Woman Rides the Beast, gives
much more information that positively identifies the fallen woman of Revelation
as the Roman Catholic Church. It is
available from Giving & Sharing for $11 plus postage. We also publish The Papacy is the
Antichrist, by J.A. Wylie, 36-page reprint, $6.