[214] Deut. xxiii. 17.
[215] Rev. xvii. 6 ἐθαύμασα θαῦμα μέγα.
[216] Not held of the civil power, or acknowledged to be so held, but usurped upon it, and insolently directed against it; as is well known from ecclesiastical history. The Pope is not Antichrist: God forbid! (says the good Abbé Fleury, with a zeal becoming a member of the Papal communion.) But neither is he impeccable, nor has he an absolute authority in the church over all things both temporal and spiritual—Le pape n’est pas l’Antichrist; à Dieu ne plaise; mais il n’est pas impeccable, ni monarque absolu dans l’eglise pour le temporel et pour le spirituel [4eme disc. sur l’hist. ecclesiastique, p. 173. Par. 1747, 12o.]
The Pope, he says, is not an absolute monarch in the church over all things temporal and spiritual: That is, he ought not to arrogate to himself the power of an absolute monarch; for that the pope assumes to be such a monarch, and, in fact, exercised this supreme monarchical power in the church, through many ages, the learned and candid writer had indisputably shewn, in the discourse, whence these words are quoted. But now this monarchical sovereignty in all things temporal, as well us spiritual, is certainly one prophetical note or character, by which the person or power, styled Antichristian, is distinguished. Let the Pope, then, be what he will, we are warranted by M. Fleury himself to conclude, that he hath, at least, this mark of Antichrist.
[217] In the persecution of heretics; which M. Bossuet regards as so little dishonourable to his communion, that he thinks it a point not to be called in question—calls the use of the sword in matters of religion, an undoubted right—and concludes, that there is no illusion more dangerous than to consider TOLERATION, as a mark of the true Church—l’exercise de la puissance du glaive dans les matieres de la religion & de la conscience; chose, que ne peût être revoquée en doute—le droit est certain—il n’y a point d’illusion plus dangereuse que de donner LA SOUFFRANCE pour un caractere le vraye Eglise. Hist. des Var. l. x. p. 51. Par. 1740, 12o.
Thus, this great doctor of the Catholic church, towards the close of the last century. And just now, another eminent writer of that communion very roundly defends the murder of the Bohemian martyrs at Constance, and (what is more provoking still) the fraud and ill-faith, through which the pious and tender-hearted Fathers of that council rushed to the perpetration of it. M. Crevier, Hist. de l’Université de Paris, t. iii. l. vi. p. 435, &c. Par. 1761, 12o.—Can it be worth while to spend words in fixing this charge of intolerance on the church of Rome, when her ablest advocates, as we see, even in our days, openly triumph in it? But, then, hath she forgotten who it was that the prophet saw, drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus—Rev. xvii; 6?. Alas, no: But she wonders, by what figure of speech heretics are called Saints; and rebels to the Pope, Martyrs of Jesus.
[218] See Vitringa Apocalyps. Exp. p. 603, and the authors cited by him: But, above all, see Mr. Mede’s exquisite and unanswerable discourse, entitled, The Apostacy of the latter times.
’Tis true, the Bishop of Meaux is pleased to divert himself with one part of this discourse; I mean, that part, which contains [ch. xvi. and xvii.] the learned writer’s interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy, concerning the Gods Mahuzzim. He finds something pleasant in this idea, or rather in this hard word, which he repeats so often, and in such a way, as if he thought the very sound of Mahuzzim, was enough to expose the comment and Commentator to contempt. Hist. des Var. l. xiii. p. 260, 261. But, after all, the ingenious Prelate would have done himself no discredit by being a little more serious in discussing an interpretation, which Sir Isaac Newton adopts without scruple [Obs. on the prophecies of Daniel, &c. p. 192]; and which, in mere respect to the prophet, he should, at least, have condescended to replace by some other and more reasonable interpretation. But it is the infirmity of this lively man, to be jocular out of season. Thus, again, he raillies Luther, for an assertion of his, delivered, it seems, with some assurance, and, in the form, as he pretends, of a prediction, That the Papal power would speedily decline and come to nothing, in consequence of the Reformation. The event, he says, has belied the prophet; the Pope still keeps his ground; and then (in an unlucky parenthesis) laughs to think, how many others, besides Luther, will be dashed to pieces against this STONE—bien d’autres, que Luther, se briseront contre cette PIERRE [Var. l. xiii. p. 244]. Now, if the glory of saying a good thing had not infatuated this Catholic Bishop, could he have helped starting at his own comparison of a stone, as applied to Luther and the Reformation, when it might so naturally have put him in mind of that prophetical STONE, which shall one day become a great mountain, and break in pieces a certain IMAGE, and stand for ever [Dan. ii. 35, 44.]?
[219] L’Eglise, en nous enseignant qu’il est utile de prier les Saints, nous enseigne à les prier dans ce même esprit de charité, & selon cet ordre de société fraternelle qui nous porte à demander le secours de nos freres vivans sur la terre; & le Catechisme du Concile de Trente conclut de cette doctrine, que si la qualité de Mediateur, que l’ecriture donne à Jesus Christ, recevoit quelque préjudice de l’intercession des Saints qui regnent avec Dieu, elle n’eu recevroit pas moins de l’intercession des fideles qui vivent avec nous.
M. Bossuet, Exposition de la doctrine de l’Eglise Catholique, p. 17, 18. Paris, 1671.
[220] Vitringa, p. 603, 604.