In this inquiry it may be assumed that the preceding exposition is correct, and the application now to be made must accord with that—that is, it must be found that events occurred in such times and circumstances as would be consistent with the supposition that that exposition is correct. It is to be assumed, therefore, that ch. ix. 20, 21, refers to the state of the ecclesiastical world after the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, and previous to the Reformation; that ch. x. refers to the Reformation itself; that ch. xi. 1, 2, refers to the necessity, at the time of the Reformation, of ascertaining what was the true church, of reviving the Scripture doctrine respecting the atonement and justification, and of drawing correct lines as to membership in the church. All this has reference, according to this interpretation, to the state of the church while the Papacy would have the ascendency, or during the twelve hundred and sixty years in which it would trample down the church as if the holy city were in the hands of the Gentiles. Assuming this to be the correct exposition, then what is here said (ver. 3–13) must relate to that period, for it is with reference to that same time—the period of “a thousand two hundred and threescore days,” or twelve hundred and sixty years—that it is said (ver. 3) the witnesses would “prophesy,” “clothed in sackcloth.” If this be so, then what is here stated (ver. 3–13) must be supposed to occur during the ascendency of the Papacy, and must mean, in general, that during that long period of apostasy, darkness, corruption, and sin, there would be faithful witnesses for the truth, who, though they were few in number, would be sufficient to keep up the knowledge of the truth on the earth, and to bear testimony against the prevailing errors and abominations. The object of this portion of the book, therefore, is to describe the character of the faithful witnesses for the truth during this long period of darkness; to state their influence; to record their trials; and to show what would be the ultimate result in regard to them, when their “testimony” should become triumphant. This general view will be seen to accord with the exposition of the previous portion of the book, and will be sustained, I trust, by the more particular inquiry into the application of the passage to which I now proceed. The essential points in the passage (ver. 3–13) respecting the “witnesses” are six: (1) who are meant by the witnesses; (2) the war made on them; (3) their death; (4) their resurrection; (5) their reception into heaven; and (6) the consequences of their triumph in the calamity that came upon the city.
I. Who are meant by the witnesses, ver. 3–6. There are several specifications in regard to this point which it is necessary to notice. (a) The fact that, during this long period of error, corruption, and sin, there were those who were faithful witnesses for the truth—men who opposed the prevailing errors; who maintained the great doctrines of the Christian faith; and who were ready to lay down their lives in defence of the truth. For a full confirmation of this it would be necessary to trace the history of the church down from the rise of the Papal power through the long lapse of the subsequent ages; but such an examination would be far too extensive for the purpose contemplated in these Notes, and, indeed, would require a volume by itself. Happily, this has already been done; and all that is necessary now is to refer to the works where the fact here affirmed has been abundantly established. In many of the histories of the church—Mosheim, Neander, Milner, Milman, Gïeseler—most ample proof may be found, that amidst the general darkness and corruptionthere were those who faithfully adhered to the truth as it is in Jesus, and who, amidst many sufferings, bore their testimony against prevailing errors. The investigation has been made, also, with special reference to an illustration of this passage, by Mr. Elliott, Horæ Apoca. vol. ii. pp. 193–406; and although it must be admitted that some of the details are of doubtful applicability, yet the main fact is abundantly established, that during that long period there were “witnesses” for the pure truths of the gospel, and a faithful testimony borne against the abominations and errors of the Papacy.These “witnesses” are divided by Mr. Elliott into (1) the earlier Western witnesses—embracing such men, and their followers, as Serenus, bishop of Marseilles; the Anglo-Saxon church in England;[358] Agobard, archbishop of Lyons from A.D. 810 to 841, on the one side of the Alps, and Claude of Turin on the other; Gotteschalcus, A.D. 884; Berenger, Arnold of Brescia, Peter de Bruys, and his disciple Henry, and then the Waldenses. (2) The Eastern, or Paulikian line of witnesses, a sect deriving their origin, about A.D. 653, from an Armenian by the name of Constantine, who received from a deacon, by whom he was hospitably entertained, a present of two volumes, very rare, one containing the Gospels, and the other the Epistles of Paul, and who applied himself to the formation of a new sect or church, distinct from the Manicheans, and from the Greek Church. In token of the nature of their profession, they adopted the name by which they were ever after distinguished, Paulikiani, Paulicians, or “disciples of the disciple of Paul.” This sect continued to bear “testimony” in the East from the time of its rise till the eleventh or twelfth centuries, when it commenced a migration to the West, where it bore the same honourable character for its attachment to the truth. See Elliott, ii. 233–246, 275–315. (3) Witnesses during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, up to the time of Peter Waldo. Among these are to be noticed those who were arraigned for heresy before the councils of Orleans, Arras, Thoulouse, Oxford, and Lombers, in the years 1022, 1025, 1119, 1160, 1165, respectively, and who were condemned by those councils for their departure from the doctrines held by the Papacy. For a full illustration of the doctrines held by those who were thus condemned, and of the fact that they were “witnesses” for the truth, see Elliott, ii. 247–275. (4) The Waldenses and Albigenses. The nature of the testimony borne by these persecuted people is so well known that it is not necessary to dwell on the subject; and a full statement of their testimony would require the entire transcription of their history. No Protestant will doubt that they were “witnesses” for the truth, or that from the time of their rise, through all the periods of their persecution, they bore full and honourable testimony to the truth as it is in Jesus. The general ground of this claim to be regarded as Apocalyptic witnesses, will be seen from the following summary statements of their doctrines. Those statements are found in a work called The Noble Lesson, written within some twenty years of 1170. The treatise begins in this manner: “O brethren, hear a Noble Lesson. We ought always to watch and pray,” &c. In this treatise the following doctrines are drawn out, says Mr. Elliott, “with much simplicity and beauty: the origin of sin in the fall of Adam; its transmission to all men, and the offered redemption from it through the death of Jesus Christ; the union and co-operation of the three persons of the blessed Trinity in man’s salvation; the obligation and spirituality of the moral law under the gospel; the duties of prayer, watchfulness, self-denial, unworldliness, humility, love, as ‘the way of Jesus Christ;’ their enforcement by the prospect of death and judgment, and the world’s near ending; by the narrowness, too, of the way of life, and the fewness of those who find it; as also by the hope of coming glory at the judgment and revelation of Jesus Christ. Besides which we find in it a protest against the Romish system generally, as one of soul-destroying idolatry; against masses for the dead, and therein against the whole doctrine of purgatory; against the system of the confessional, and asserted power of the priesthood to absolve from sin; this last point being insisted on as the most deadly point of heresy, and its origin referred to the mercenariness of the priesthood,and their love of money;—the iniquity further noticed of the Romish persecutions of good men and teachers that wished to teach the way of Jesus Christ; and the suspicion half-hinted, and apparently half-formed, that, though a personal Antichrist might be expected, yet Popery itself might be one form of Antichrist.” In another work, the Treatise of Antichrist, there is a strong and decided identification of the Antichristian system and the Papacy. This was written probably in the last quarter of the fourteenth century. “From this,” says Mr. Elliott (ii. 355), “the following will appear to have been the Waldensian views: that the Papal or Romish system was that of Antichrist; which, from infancy in apostolic times, had grown gradually by the increase of its constituent parts to the stature of a full-grown man; that its prominent characteristics were—to defraud God of the worship due to Him, rendering it to creatures, whether departed saints, relics, images, or Antichrist;—to defraud Christ, by attributing justification and forgiveness to Antichrist’s authority and words, to saints’ intercession, to the merits of men’s own performances, and to the fire of purgatory;—to defraud the Holy Spirit, by attributing regeneration and sanctification to the opus operatum of the two sacraments; that the origin of this Antichristian religion was the covetousness of the priesthood; its tendency, to lead men away from Christ; its essence, a ceremonial; its foundation, the false notion of grace and forgiveness.” This work is so important as a “testimony” against Antichrist, and for the truth, and is so clear as showing that the Papacy was regarded as Antichrist, that I will copy, from the work itself, the portion containing these sentiments—sentiments which may be regarded as expressing the uniform testimony of the Waldenses on the subject:—
“Antichrist is the falsehood of eternal damnation, covered with the appearance of the truth and righteousness of Christ and his spouse. The iniquity of such a system is with all his ministers, great and small: and inasmuch as they follow the law of an evil and blinded heart, such a congregation, taken together, is called Antichrist, or Babylon, or the Fourth Beast, or the Harlot, or the Man of Sin, who is the son of perdition.
“His first work is, that the service of latria, properly due to God alone, he perverts unto Antichrist himself and to his doings; to the poor creature, rational or irrational, sensible or insensible; as, for instance, to male or female saints departed this life, and to their images, or carcasses, or relics. His doings are the sacraments, especially that of the Eucharist, which he worships 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. Thus he divides the people from Christ, and leads them away to the things already mentioned; that so they may seek not the things of Christ, nor through Christ, but only the work of their own hands; not through a living faith in God, and Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit; but through the will and the work of Antichrist, agreeably to the preaching that man’s salvation depends on his own deeds.
“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 outward consecration of baptism regeneration may be procured.
“His fourth work is, that he rests the whole religion of the people upon his Mass; for leading them to hear it, he deprives them of spiritual and sacramental manducation.
“His fifth work is, that he does everything to be seen, and to glut his insatiable avarice.
“His sixth work is, that he allows manifest sins without ecclesiastical censure.
“His seventh work is, that he defends his unity, not by the Holy Spirit, but by the secular power.