No Other Than The Church of Rome

Whore_of_Babylon

Christopher Wordsworth, D.D.:

“Look again at the prophecy. These kings, we read, give their power and strength to the Beast. They reign, as kings, at the same time with the Beast. As kings–that is, they are called kings–but the Beast is the real Sovereign of their subjects. And what is the fact? The European Kingdoms, which arose at the dissolution of the Roman Empire, surrendered themselves to the dominion of the Church of Rome, and were, for many centuries, subject to the Papacy. The Woman, who sat upon the Beast, had her hand upon the Horns, and held them firmly in her grasp. She still treats them as her subjects. The Papal Coins proclaim this. “Omnes Reges servient ei.” “Gens et Regnum, quod tibi non servierit, peribit.” Such are her claims; and at the Coronation of every Pontiff she thus accosts him: “Know thyself to be the Father of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World.” These are the words which he assumes to himself, when the papal Tiara is placed on his brow. Thus in the claim of the Church of Rome to exercise sway over the Kings of the earth, and in that amplitude of dominion and plenitude of felicity, to which she has appealed for so many generations as a proof that she is favoured by Heaven, we recognize another proof that the Babylon of the Apocalypse, the Woman on the Beast, to whom Kings were to give their power and strength, is no other than the Church of Rome.”

~“Is not the Church of Rome the Babylon of the Book of Revelation?” An Essay by Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., Sometime Bishop of Lincoln at http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=union_2b

The Ritualist Priest and the Ass

Ane-cloture

TO THE
PROTESTANT MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
A FABLE

THE RITUALIST PRIEST AND THE ASS


A RITUALIST PRIEST meeting an ass, thus accosted her—” How durst thou presume to wear the sign. of the holy rood, seeing that thou art an unbaptized and unregenerate ass?”
 The meek-spirited beast replied—”Brother! God placed the cross on my back but I know not who placed it on thine.”
 Moral.—Self-imposed crosses occasion arrogancy.

FREDERICK JAMES BROWN.

The Interpretation Was Prior To The Reformation

Christopher Wordsworth, D.D. on the pre-Protestant identification of the woman on the beast as papal Rome rather than pagan Rome:

Paderborner Dom Dreifaltigkeitskapelle Liborius“The truth also is, that Bossuet misrepresents the interpretation which identifies the Church of Rome with Babylon. He calls it “a Protestant interpretation”; by which he means that it is a modern interpretation, contemporary with, or subsequent to, the Reformation in the sixteenth century.

But this is an oversight. For no sooner did the Church of Rome begin to put forth her present claims, and enforce her modern creed, than it was proclaimed by many witnesses, that by so doing she was identifying herself with the Babylon of the Apocalypse.

Dating from Pope Gregory the First, who made a prophetic protest against the title of Universal Bishop at the close of the sixth century, we can trace a succession of such witnesses to this day. In that series we may enumerate the celebrated Peter of Blois, the Waldenses, and Joachim of Calabria, Ubertinus de Casali, Peter Olivi, Marsilius of Padua, and the illustrious names of Dante and Petrarch.

The interpretation, which identifies the Church of Rome with the Apocalyptic Babylon, does not date from the Reformation; the truth is, that it was prior to the Reformation, and did much to produce the Reformation.

In the seventh and following centuries, the Church of Rome was united with the City of Rome, by the junction of the temporal and spiritual Powers in the Person of the Roman Pontiff; and when the Church of Rome began to put forth her new dogmas, and to enforce them as necessary to salvation, then it was publicly affirmed by many, (although she burnt some who affirmed it), that she was fulfilling the Apocalyptic prophecies concerning Babylon. And though the destruction of heathen Rome by the Goths in the fifth century was a most striking event, yet not a single witness of any antiquity can be cited in favor of the Exposition of Bossuet and his co-religionists, who see a fulfillment of the predictions of the Apocalypse, concerning the destruction of Babylon, in the fall of heathen Rome by the sword of Alaric.

Indeed, that exposition is a modern one; it is an afterthought; and has been devised by Bossuet and others to meet the other, which they call the Protestant, interpretation. The identification of the Apocalyptic Babylon with ancient Heathen Rome, as its adequate antitype, is an invention of modern Papal Rome.”

~“Is not the Church of Rome the Babylon of the Book of Revelation?” An Essay by Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., Sometime Bishop of Lincoln at http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=union_2a

 

The Church of England the Bulwark of Our Liberties (?)

ASCENSION ISLAND - ST. MARY'S ANGLICAN CHURCH

WE have been very courteously admonished in the “Standard” Newspaper for taking any part in the agitation for disestablishing and disendowing the Irish church, and for expressing the hope that the like justice might, ere long, be measured out to the Establishment in England. We are thankful for the advice, but can assure our friend that it does not strike us as valuable. Our friend evidently thinks that if we and other Dissenters were better advised we should rally round the present Establishment, since its existence has been and is the great security for religious liberty; and if it were removed the Romanists would soon be in the ascendant, and persecution would follow. To this our reply is ready—we do not believe that the church of England is any more the protector of our liberties than are the Beef-eaters at the Tower, or the cream-colored horses in the royal stable. There is no sort of connection between the two by way of promotion, but very much in the way of hindrance. Historically, it will hardly be contended that Episcopacy, which hanged and imprisoned our forefathers in Elizabeth’s day, was then the bulwark of Dissenting liberty; nor can it be pretended that, under James I. and Charles I., it guarded sacredly the freedom of consciences. Clipped ears, slit noses, and branded cheeks were not very convincing proofs that an established church was tender and tolerant, and careful to give freedom to Dissenters. Nonconformists would hardly have dealt out such severe measures to Episcopacy in the time of Cromwell, if they had found it to be their shield and bulwark. Did the Act of Uniformity tenderly respect the liberty of Dissenters, or the Five Mile Act, and other such edicts? Were Claverhouse, and other butchers, the advocates and promoters of liberty? Does Scotland owe her liberty to Episcopacy or to the Covenanters? Was the act of Catholic emancipation the work of bishops and deans? The fact is that the existence of a sect, fondled by the state and supported by its wealth, in proportion as it dignifies the favored church, is an insult to the honor of all other, and a shackle to their freedom. It is an idle tale that the Episcopal sect guards our liberties as a body; in its midst are many noble and liberal men, who are always on the people’s side, but the bulk of its adherents incline in an opposite direction, and, as a church, it is almost always obstructive and disinclined to reform. Dissenters do not owe it, in political matters, the turn of a brass farthing, and have long enough been duped by the pretension that it is their friend and guardian.
 At the present moment we also fail to discover how the Establishment is the fortress under whose guns we dwell in safety. Our notion is, that, under God, our liberties are in the hands of the people of the United Kingdom, and that they know too well the value of them to let them slip. The sons of the Ironsides are not yet departed from among us, and we who could not use the carnal weapon have yet our free press, our unfettered pulpit, and our open Bibles, and feel safe enough while these are our munitions of war. While the freely chosen representatives of the people are our rulers, and a limited monarchy our form of government, we do not see how it can be said that our freedom rests with an Establishment which has no power to legislate for itself, much less for the nation. As well might the mistletoe pretend that its parasitical verdure is the true security of the oak, or the fox that its existence is the guarantee of the fertility of the land. We are at a loss to conceive where our friends see the connection. Is it in the fact that the bishops sit in the House of Lords, and always vote for every measure of a broad and liberal character? Or is it that the payment of tithes makes every man a lover of the constitution which enforces them? There may possibly be some recondite connection between a state-church and liberty, but we cannot see it. We are asked to go to Spain and Rome, but we prefer traveling to America, and there, without a state-church, we find a freedom certainly not less unlimited than our own. What can be done across the ocean can be done here. Americans can maintain their freedom without a state-church, and Englishmen are not less liberty-loving and not less able to take care of themselves. If, indeed, the state-church be such a bulwark of the constitution, why deprive the colonies of the blessing? Why act upon a wrong policy abroad, and save up all the good things for home? The case does not bear half a moment’s investigation.
 But the Catholics will be in the ascendant as soon as the church is disestablished. WHY? In the name of reason, why? Will they become the majority of the nation and of the House of Commons? Are we to believe that the Episcopal body is only pretendedly Protestant, and will go over to the Catholics as soon as their state pay is stopped? Then the nation will be the better for being rid of such mercenary defenders of her Protestantism. But, on the other hand, if the Protestant section of the church remains firm, what difference will be made? How will the numerical power of Protestantism be affected? Does the spiritual efficiency of the church in keeping back Popery depend upon tithes? Would not the Evangelical clergy pray and preach if they were disestablished? We are puzzled to know what is the foundation upon which the assertion rests as to this supposed hindrance of Catholic dominancy. We have no doubt Popery would like to mount the throne, and we could not trust its priests for an instant with power, but all the influence which now really operates to restrain their pretensions would remain still, and would gain immeasurably by the change. The church of England has in it a horde of Papists, and is doing Rome’s work daily, and yet it is set up before us as the bulwark against Rome: disestablish the church, and it would purify itself at once. The true church will prevail against the gates of hell without the state’s patronage. The issue is with God, and he needs no injustice to be perpetrated that his cause may be maintained. If the worst came to the worst, and the people of God were called to suffer, by God’s grace they could do it triumphantly, and would rather do so than be found guilty of forgetting that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. Take away a state-church, and we are ready to bear the blame of all the consequences necessarily arising out of it; but we are not ready to aid and abet so glaring an act of oppression as compelling the many among the people of Ireland to support a religion in which scarcely one in ten of them believes.

Source: http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/tract31.php

Except Thou Begin At The Bishops

Henry Wardlaw“The preaching of God’s word is hateful and contrary unto them. Why? For it is impossible to preach Christ, except thou preach against antichrist; that is to say, them which with their false doctrine and violence of sword enforce to quench the true doctrine of Christ. And as thou canst heal no disease, except thou begin at the root; even so canst thou preach against no mischief, except thou begin at the bishops.”

~ William Tyndale

Source: http://calvinisticquotes.blogspot.ca/2013/07/the-preaching-of-gods-word-is-hateful.html

The Figure of the Roman City

Tertullian:

“Names are employed by us as signs. Thus Samaria is a sign of Idolatry, Egypt is a symbol of Malediction, and in like manner, in the writings of our own St. John, Babylon is a figure of the Roman City, mighty, proud of its sway, and fiercely persecuting the Saints.”

~“Is not the Church of Rome the Babylon of the Book of Revelation?” An Essay by Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., Sometime Bishop of Lincoln at http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=union_1

The Pope Is The Man Of Sin

Here is a series from Covenanter Reformation showing that the Pope of Rome IS the Man of Sin described in 2 Thessalonians 2.

Antichrist1Part 1 discusses how Antichrist and the Man of Sin are identical: https://covenanterreformation.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/the-pope-the-man-of-sin-part-1/

Part 2 discusses how the Pope fulfills the description in 2 Thessalonians 2: https://covenanterreformation.wordpress.com/2015/04/20/the-pope-the-man-of-sin-part-2/

Part 3 discusses who the “restrainer” is and how Antichrist was to appear after the fall of the Roman Empire: https://covenanterreformation.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/the-pope-the-man-of-sin-part-3/

Here is just one quote from this series showing that historicism is the long-standing interpretation of the believing church:

Cyril of Jerusalem (313 – 386): “But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after those an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, ‘three he shall humble,’ and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself.” Catechetical Lectures, section 15, on II Thessalonians 2:4, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII

 

Wordsworth on Why the Revelation 17 Woman is Rome

Walls of Rome 6th centuryFrom “Is not the Church of Rome the Babylon of the Book of Revelation?” An Essay by Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., Sometime Bishop of Lincoln:

“3. Thirdly, we read in the Apocalypse: Here is the mind, or meaning, which hath wisdom (Rev.xvii.9); the Seven heads of the Beast are Seven Mountains, on which the Woman sitteth.

In St. John’s age there was One City, a Great City, built on Seven Hills,–Rome. The name of each of its Seven Hills is well known: in St. John’s time Rome was usually called “the Seven-hilled City.” She was celebrated as such in an annual national Festival. And there is scarcely a Roman Poet of any note who has not spoken of Rome as a City seated on Seven Mountains. Virgil, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid, Silius Italicus, Statius, Martial, Claudian, Prudentius — in short, the unanimous Voice of Roman Poetry during more than five hundred years, beginning with the age of St. John, proclaimed Rome as “the Seven-hilled City.”

Nor is this all. The Apocalypse is illustrated, in this respect, from another source, equally obvious to the world–Coins.

On the Imperial Medals of that age, which are still preserved, we see Rome displayed as a Woman sitting on Seven Hills, as she is represented in the Apocalypse.”

Source and read more: http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=union_1

 

The Church of England is the Great Bulwark of Protestantism!

Former Anglican priest and U.S. Army Maj. Ken Bolin, the brigade chaplain for the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, performs the rituals to become an ordained priest, presided over by 130307-A-ZD229-073

THIS is no fancy sketch, but is the faithful representation of three clergymen of the church of England while performing some of their favorite devotional exercises. They are presented to the reader that he may be duly impressed with the fact that THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IS THE GREAT BULWARK OF PROTESTANTISM! Behold before you three of the goodly buttresses of that bulwark! Disestablish and disendow the church of England, and we are told that Popery will find nothing left to stay its onward rush. It is well for us to know our benefactors; look then, gentle reader, and look again at three of the many clerical breakwaters which prevent our being deluged by the abominations of Rome! Those birettas, and copes, and girdles, are the bonds and rivets of religious liberty, the emblems of Protestant simplicity, the safeguards of the State! Unless England keeps these gentlemen and their church in its pay and patronage, it will cease to be a Christian country, and will become the unhappy victim of the Pope! The watchword is given, “No Popery!” Defend the church, whose precious priests so elegantly adorn their persons, and perfume themselves with incense, and then Protestantism will be safe! Disestablish their church, or even a branch of it, and the deluge has arrived!
 In truth, this fooling about Protestantism is too transparent to deceive any but the most idiotic. The church of England has done and is doing very much to lead back this nation to that reverence of priests and sacraments from which our martyred forefathers delivered us. The evangelical clergy dare not deny this; and the Tractarians glory in it. The distinction between the Popery of Rome and the Popery of Oxford is only the difference between prussic acid and arsenic: they are both equally deadly, and are equally to be abhorred. It is undeniable that some of the most eminent divines in the Anglican church are straining their utmost to effect the union of their community with Rome, and their admiration for everything Popish is undisguised. As a rule they are bold, outspoken men, and are acting upon earnest convictions when they oppose Protestantism. Yet we are to recognize this English Popery as the great bulwark of Protestantism! We will believe it when we believe wolves to be the guardians of sheepfolds, felons to be the defenders of property, and fallen angels to be the bodyguard of heaven—and not till then. Many of the clergy avowedly reject the very name of Protestant, and yet we are to accept them as its defenders! Protestantism has been wounded and betrayed by the church of England, and has found within its walls its most skilled and energetic foes. Bulwark of Protestantism indeed! Twin sister of Rome is nearer the mark. Look on the three graces in the woodcut, and see whether the sons of the Anglican mother do not bear a strong family likeness to those of the renowned scarlet lady of the seven hills! Indeed, so far from being scandalized at this remark, the gentlemen would own the soft impeachment with a smile, and think it a deserved commendation, for whatever other parties in the church may be, the men of this school are not cowards, and do not conceal their Romanising tendencies. Yet a church abounding with undisguised Romanisers is the bulwark of Prostestantism! Who believes it?
 The fact is, that a strong and purely evangelical Episcopalian church never will be seen in this country again till the church is set free from the state. Then those hundreds of godly men who now remain in communion with Romanisers will form themselves into a truly Protestant church, and will in brotherly union with the other free churches form the true bulwark of Protestantism, against which, by God’s grace, the gates of hell shall not prevail. It is a great misfortune that those who know and preach the gospel, do not come out voluntarily from the Anglican Papacy, but if they will not, every true Protestant should labor to separate the church and state so as to drive them out, that they may no longer be a shield to Romanisers, and partakers of their sins. The union of church and state is the nest for the Romish crows, down with it at once and for ever. Not one of its truths or its gospel ministers would be hurt thereby, but the truths would be separated from error, and the ministers of the word loosed from the bondage of their present connection with sacramentarianism. If Evangelical churchmen were wise they would see that the separation of the church from the state would be the birth of a pure church, the resurrection of spiritual life, the purging out of the old leaven, and by God’s grace the best event that could possibly happen for Protestantism.
 Reader, believe us, faith in Jesus brings salvation, not faith in priests; the church of Christ is not a state-made corporation, but a body of believers in Jesus. Take sides with Christ and his truth, and do not be duped by the clap-trap cries of the moribund state church, which will say anything to postpone its inevitable doom.

Source: http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/tract30.php

Her Foot Has Crushed The Head of Satan?

Pope Pius IX (Pio Nono) on Mary in his encyclical Ubi primum:

“The resplendent glory of her merits, far exceeding all the choirs of angel, elevates her to the very steps of the throne of God.  Her foot has crushed the head of Satan.  Set up between Christ and his Church, Mary, ever lovable, and full of grace, always has delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies, ever rescuing them from ruin.”

Life in Anticipation of the Seventh Vial

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers

%d bloggers like this: