THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST'S SECOND APPEARING. BOOK VI. THE GRAND DIVISION IN THE KINGDOM OF ANTICHRIST, CHAPTER I. THE CAUSE AND FIRST MEANS OF REFORMING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. A REFORMATION of the doctrines, worship, discipline, and gov- CHAP. I. ernment of the corrupt body, church, or kingdom of antichrist, and a restitution of all that order and glory, which God by his holy Prophets promised to accomplish in the latter-day, are two very different things. 2. It has been made manifest, that the faith, order, and power, together with the whole truth and simplicity of the true and genuine Church of Christ, was totally supplanted and trodden under foot by this false and corrupt church; and no promise either of a reformation or restitution of the false was ever given; but a full restitution of the true was promised, though not to take place until Christ should make his second appearance. 3. Therefore, what has generally passed under the name of the Reformation, implies no other alteration in the church that then existed, than a mere change of form; and a reformation, or forming a thing over again, may either be for the better or for the worse. 4. The Protestant Reformed Church, which took its rise * • We have used the term Protestant Reformed Church, to include the whole of that divided and sub-divided party which separated from the Church of Rome, but did not really constitute a separate church till after its founders had entered that protest against the decrees of the Catholic party, from which protest the name Protestant originated. This numerous and divided party, are usually sub-divided into the Lutheran Church, and the Reformed Church, including all those various sects which exist, as the fruits of the Reformation; but, as they all admit of the general appellation of Protestants, we think it not improper to distinguish them by the above title. CHAP I. early in the sixteenth century, is so denominated from its first founders protesting against the authority and form of government practised by the pope; while they proceeded to build up the same people, in the same rudimental faith, upon another plan of government. Eccl. His tory, vol. iv. p. 52. Hist. of vol. ii. p. 122. 5. And from the fruitful invention of these reformers and their successors, innumerable forms of government have been contrived, sects, parties, and churches formed, all differing from, and protesting against their mother church, and against each other; yet all pretending to be the one Church of Christ. 6. The protest was by no means entered against the Catholic church, nor was her orthodoxy ever called in question, until the division was completed, and the reforming party had gained sufficient strength to claim a right to the same power and authority with which the Church universal had been vested. 7. Nor even then, was it ever maintained, by the promoters of the Protestant cause, that the Catholic church was not the true orthodox church previous to this revolution: as may appear from what is stated by Dr. Mosheim, concerning LUTHER, namely: that, "he separated himself only from the Church of Rome, which considers the pope as infallible, and not from the church, considered in a more extensive sense; for he submitted to the decision of the universal [or Catholic] church, when that decision should be given in a general council lawfully assembled." 8. Now this general council, Luther affirmed to be the repreCharles V. sentative of the Catholic church; and therefore must have considered it, as representing the orthodox church, as much as the council of Nice had done; so that the protest in nowise respected the church, but her head; and hence it necessarily followed, that the only point to be decided between the reforming party and the pope, was, Who should be the head; or in other words, Which of them should be the greatest. 9. The kingdom of antichrist was full of animosities and divisions from the beginning; and by those divisions, and a thirst for temporal glory and dominion, the church that was established for the domineering party, by emperors and general councils, has been sufficiently proved to be not only false, but totally corrupt in every part. 10. The first founders of the Reformation taught no new doctrine different from what had been established in the general councils of this corrupt church. Nor had they any divine authority for their conduct; but were actuated by the suggestions of their own natural sagacity and carnal wisdom, as the school philosophers, emperors and popes, had been before them. From whence, then, could any Reformation arise for the better, to a church manifestly false, and wholly corrupt, both in its head and members? An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, 11. Hence we see among the first fruits of the Reformation, CHAP. I. that, instead of putting an end to those scandalous debates and animosities, which had continued in the church for many ages, divisions and sectaries increased and multiplied from day to day. This may be seen in Dr. Mosheim's introduction to his history · on the times of the Reformation, which he very properly calls, times of discord. Yet this is denominated the Blessed Refor mation. 12. It is not even pretended that the first reformers had any divine authority for their conduct. This is evident from the plain declarations of their most able defenders, who pointedly discard the very idea of their being actuated by any extraordinary illuminations of the Spirit of God, or claiming any other light or power than that which had all along been preserved in the church. Eccl. His iv p. 3-5. tory, vol. 295. 13. Dr. Mosheim says, "They were conducted only by the Ibid. p 294, suggestions of their natural sagacity. The Lutherans were greatly assisted, both in correcting and illustrating the articles of their faith, partly by the controversies they were obliged to carry on with the Roman Catholic doctors, and the disciples of Zuingle and Calvin, and partly by the intestine divisions that reigned among themselves." If contentions and divisions are the effects of the true Gospel, then a fountain may, at the same place, send forth both salt water and fresh. 14. Dr. Maclaine, speaking of the first reformers, says, Ibid. p. 143. "Those who especially merit that title, were Luther, Calvin, Appendix. Zuingle, Melancthon, Bucer, Martyr, Bullinger, Beza, Oecolampadius and others." And he very justly observes, "They pretended not to be called to the work they undertook by visions, or internal illuminations and impulses:-they never attempted to work miracles, nor pleaded a divine commission; they taught no new religion, nor laid claim to any extraordinary vocation." 15. Then what other fruits could be expected, but such as a corrupt and aspiring hierarchy had always produced, seeing they maintained their former standing, and derived their authority from the same corrupt source with other lordly bishops? 16. "They had recourse to reason and argument, (says the above writer,) to the rules of sound criticism, and to the authority and light of history. They translated the Scriptures into the popular languages of different countries, and appealed to them as the only test of religious truth." 17. But who authorised them to set up their reason, their argument, and rules of criticism above their fellows? or to assert that their translation of the Scriptures is the only test of religious truth? For it is plainly acknowledged that they were never sent of God. Therefore, according to their own conces CHAP. I. sions, they rank themselves with the false prophets whom God spake of by the Prophet Jeremiah. Jer. xiv. 14. ch. xxiii. 20-29. 1 Cor. i 20. Isa. xxix. 14. Jer. xviii. 30-32. 18. The prophets prophesy lies in my name. I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake I unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of naught, and the deceit of their own heart. Again: In the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly. I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: 1 have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. And again: The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. 19. But these first reformers, according to the writings of their ablest defenders, had not even so much as the chaff, not even so much as a dream or a vision, or any internal illumination of the Spirit; nothing but the suggestions of their own natural sagacity, which in the sight of God is nothing more than a false vision and divination, the deceit of their own heart; and how much less then had they that eternal word which is as a fire? 20. But "these first reformers, were all men of learning, they translated the Scriptures into the popular languages." But what then? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? hath he not determined that the wisdom of their wise men shall perish? 21. "They maintained (says Maclaine) that the faith of Christians was to be determined by the word of God alone." And what was this word of God alone, but the scriptures which they translated? And who authorised them to determine the faith of Christians, even by the words of the inspired writers, without having themselves any inspiration or divine commission? The fact is, they had stolen the words from their neighbor Catholics, and they had stolen them from the Apostles and true followers of Christ. 22. Therefore, well said the Lord by Jeremiah: Behold I am against the prophets, that steal my words every one from his neighbor. Behold I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and say, He saith: Yet I sent them not, nor commanded them. 23. That such were the first reformers, is a fact that cannot be disputed, while it is strongly urged, by their ablest defenders, that they were conducted only by the suggestions of their natural sagacity, and had no divine commission. As no true Gospel revolution ever was, or ever can be effected without divine authority, and as it is acknowledged that the first reformers had no such authority; therefore we must look for a very different cause from which all those mighty effects of the Reformation flowed. CHAP. I. Acts, i. 4. & ii. 4. 24. Even the Apostles were commanded to wait until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit, before they could either preach the Gospel, or build a Church. How then could any fallen church be reclaimed and raised on the true foundation, by the natural wisdom of man, which "discerneth not the things of 1 Cor. ii. God" without the agency of the same holy Spirit which laid that 11, 14. foundation? 25. Thus, these reformers, as they had nothing but their natural sagacity, evidently knew nothing of the true work of God, nor of the foundation upon which the true Church must stand, hence all their buildings were upon a false and rotten foundation. 26. For many centuries, the enormous power of the pope, and the horrid crimes and corruptions of every rank and order of the Catholic church, had been increasing until it became replete with tyranny and all manner of wickedness; while every attempt to reform those open and scandalous abuses, had proved ineffectual. 27. "While the Roman pontiff slumbered in security at the head of the church, (says Mosheim,) and saw nothing throughout the vast extent of his dominion, but tranquility and submission; an obscure and inconsiderable person arose, on a sudden, in the year 1517, and laid the foundation of this long-expected change, by opposing, with undaunted resolution, his single force to the torrent of papal ambition and despotism." 28. "This extraordinary man was MARTIN LUTHER,* a monk of the Augustinian Eremites." Who also saith of himself, in the preface to his works, "At first I was all alone; or as Collier hath it in his Historical Dictionary, under Martin Luther, where he praises his magnanimity, in having, "opposed himself alone to the whole earth." 29. The beginning of the Reformation arose from the private contentions of two monks, concerning the traffic of indulgences, and the pope's power in regard to the remission of sin. This contention was carried on with great animosity, between MARTIN LUTHER, and JOHN TETZEL; the latter a Dominican monk, who by public authority preached those famous indulgences of pope LEO X. The place of his birth was Aisleben, in Saxony, Germany. †These indulgences [as attested by authentic history,] were dispensed on the pretended ground that Jesus Christ and certain great saints had accumulated a fund of supernumerary righteousness, which the popes had a right to dispense to the unrighteous, [Catholics of course] for a large sum of money specified, more or less, according to the various crimes by which they were absolved from their sins, even the most enormous crimes that could be committed, past, present and future. The cause of these indulgences being dispensed to an uncommon degree at that period, arose from the pride and avarice of the papal court; pope Leo X. having undertaken to build the vast and splendid edifice, called St. Peter's Church, which cost an immense sum of money, he found that sufficient funds could not be raised by ordinary means; hence he authorized agents to travel through the Catholic countries, and make sale of these indulgences, by which means enormous sums were thus impiously drawn from the people. Eccl. His ory, vol. iv. p. 28. Mil. Chh. His. p. 209, 210. vol. ii. |