Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary: Apocalypse
John to be canonical Scripture) and the Lutherans and Calvinists, to be the true inventors of this empty and incoherent fable of the popish antichrist, twelve hundred years after the popes had successively one after another been the one, great, and famous antichrist. These lovers of novelty, liberty, and Church lands found the obscure revelations in the Apocalypse very convenient for their arbitrary fancies, where they could make the wicked Babylon not signify the heathen Roman empire, with St. Irenæus and the primitive fathers, but to be the Christian popish Rome; and the scarlet whore must be the popes and cardinals who wear scarlet and purple. An argument not inferior to that of Mr. Andrew Willet, who found out the pope to be the angel that opened with a key the bottomless pit, because, said he, who gives the cross keys for his arms but the pope? The last reformers of the faith found their ingenious expositions on the Apocalypse a fit means to stir up kings and princes, as well as the ignorant populace and unthinking mob against the tyranny of this Babylon: it is not my remark, nor that of the bishop of Meaux only, but of their learned Dr. Hammond, who, after he hath given us the extravagant and trifling ravings of Mr. Brightman, says, "that what such writers aim at, is to put the people in mind that they are to pull down antichrist. Nothing (says Dr. Hammond) can be more effectual towards the raising and fomenting of commotions." It is evident the country parson can never be at a loss, or want matter, to excite his parishioners (as occasion offers itself) to a detestation of popery and all papists, if he has but Mr. Brightman's revelations on the seven epistles in the second and third chapters of St. John's Apocalypse, written to the Protestant churches by name. See what we have cited on those chapters. If he keep by him Mr. Willet's expositions of the number of the name of antichrist, whereby he may prove that the three letters are each of them crosses, and that the sign of the cross, still retained by papists, is in very deed the cognizance of antichrist. He may confirm the same by Mr. Willet's evident demonstration, as he himself calls it. Take it in his own words, in his Synop. Papismi. Controv. 4. q. 16. "Antichrist, says he, is the great whore of Babylon, i.e. of Rome: and here, saith Willet devoutly, we are to note the singular providence of God, who suffereth not a jot of his word to fall to the ground: for even so verily, in the year 853[A.D. 853], next after Leo. IV.
there was a right whore elected pope, called John, or if you will, Joan VIII. who fell in labour in the midst of a solemn procession: thus then by evident demonstration it appeareth that the pope is the whore of Babylon, and consequently antichrist." Is not this witty? No matter if by the same logic every whore that ever lived in Rome may be proved antichrist. But as for the story of pope Joan, David Blondel, a French hugonot, has shewn it to be a fable; for it neither was pope John, nor Joan, that succeeded Leo IV. in the year 853. Leo IV. died in July 853, to whom succeeded, in August or September of the same year, Benedict III. so that no place is found for pope John or Joan, to reign after Leo two years and five months, as the authors of that story pretend. The parson, if need be, may add the expositions on the seven vials of the learned and pious divine, Mr. Mede, as Dr. W. calls him: (though the bishop of Meaux looks upon him as a mere enthusiast) the effusion of the first vial, says Mede, was when the Waldenses and Albigenses, and the followers of Wycliffe, and Hus began to renounce popery. The second vial was completed by what is more eminently styled the reformation, begun by Luther, and carried on afterwards by many others. The third vial was completed partly by the laws made here in England in the reign of queen Elizabeth against popish priests, partly by the great overthrow given to the Spanish armada, in the year 1588, and also to the Spanish forces in the Netherlands. See the rest in Dr. W. p. 127. But Dr. W. with Mr. Whiston, looks upon the vials to be all still future. I cannot think that the learned men among the Protestants believe the popes to be antichrist, especially since time, that discovers what is true as to matters of fact, that are pretended to be foretold, has confuted the conjectures of de Moulin, Jurieu, Mede, Whiston, &c. I must here do justice to divers learned men of the Protestant communion. Grotius, in a letter (epist. 557.) to the Protestant John Gerard Vossius, tells him, "that they who did not believe the popes to be antichrist, nevertheless judged it necessary to give such interpretations, for the public good of the Protestant religion." See Mons. de Meaux in his advertisement, num. 1. The same Vossius answers, (ep. 571.) "that he himself having told a certain minister of Dort, whom he calls thickscull, (lourde tete)
that he should not impose on the people, even against popery, that minister presently asked him if he was for taking the papists' part, whom, said he, we cannot run down too much, that the people may the more detest their Church. This, adds Vossius, is much the same as some others said to me at Amsterdam: why should not we say the pope is antichrist? must we leave off saying so? and make the people leave our communion more and more, as if too many did not leave it already?" This was a secret that was not to be divulged. Of our English Protestants, I have read Dr. Hammond's paraphrase and notes, on the second chapter of Thessalonians; and on the Revelation or Apocalypse, he never pretends that the popes are antichrist. The predictions in St. John, of the beasts, of the fall of Babylon, of the great harlot, he expounds, as fulfilled already, by the destruction of pagan Rome, and of its idolatry, superstitions, auguries, under the heathen emperors, much after the same manner as Alcazar, and as the bishop of Meaux and other Catholic writers. Mr. Richard Montague, in his Gag. p. 74, writes thus: "Whether the pope be that antichrist, or not, the Church (of England) resolveth not, tendereth it not to be believed any way. Some, I grant, are very peremptory indeed that he is. He, for instance, who wrote and printed it, I am as sure the pope is antichrist, that antichrist spoken of in the Scripture, as that Jesus Christ is God: but they that are so resolute, peremptory, and certain, let them answer for themselves. The Church is not tied, nor any one that I know of, to make good their private imaginations. For myself, I profess ingenuously I am not of opinion that the bishops of Rome personally are that antichrist....nor yet that the bishops of Rome successively are that antichrist," &c. He only holds the pope and papists to be antichrists improperly in the sense that St. John says, there are many antichrists. He cites for the same opinion Melancthon and others. Mr. Thorndike, in his just weights and measures, (chap. ii.) speaking to these two points, that the pope is antichrist, and papists idolaters. "The truth, says he, is they of the Church of Rome have overcharged us, in calling us heretics....but they that would have the pope antichrist, and the papists idolaters, have revived it upon them, and taken their revenge beyond the bounds of blameless defence....Let them not lead the people by the nose, to believe that they can prove the supposition, which they cannot," &c. The same Mr. Thorndike, in chap. 19, p. 125, &c.