By English Puritan Protestant Theologian, Thomas Cartwright, (d. 1603). (Source)
Let no man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come, except there comes a departing first, and that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition, etc. (2 Thess. 2).
What have we to consider in this judgment?
First, the tokens going before; secondly, the judgment itself.
What are the tokens going before it?
They are either distant from it or closer to it.
What are the distant signs of the Judgment?
A general Apostasy under the Antichrist of Rome.
What was the occasion of this doctrine of the Apostle? It seems some of the Thessalonians misconstrued the words in his former Epistle: That we which are alive and remain at the Lords coming, shall not prevent them that are dead; as if the Thessalonians, to whom Paul wrote, should live till then, which bred this error among them that the day of Judgment was at hand. And so, in his second Epistle he confutes this error by explaining that the Apostasy must come first.
Was it not a tolerable error, whereby they might be stirred up unto greater care and watchfulness?
No. For God will have just things done justly, and no truth can be well built upon falsehood. Besides, a subtle practice of Satan appears in it: that when they had long looked for the day and saw no alteration of things, nor appearance of it, they might fall into a flat unbelief, that no such thing should come to pass at all.
What do you gather from this truth?
That Satan lays his snares according to men’s inclinations: for such as he cannot fetter with pleasures (for these Thessalonians were poor, and so remained far from partaking delights) he snares with austerity and appearance of godliness, as he did the Corinthians, causing them to reject the incestuous person being penitent, who was no less evil then when before repentance they kept company with him.
So much of the occasion. What is the doctrine?
That there shall be a general Apostasy or falling away from the truth of the Gospel before the latter day.
Is it meant that the whole Church shall fall from Christ?
No: it is impossible that a perfect Head should be without a body.
Then why is it called general?
Because the Gospel having been universally preached throughout the world, whole nations did fall from it, and even the majority of those nations that kept the profession of it; howbeit, still there remained a Church, although there was no settled estate thereof.
Is it like the Lord to bar so many nations from the means of salvation that lived under Popery for so long?
Why not? And that most justly. For if the whole body of the Gentiles were rejected when the only Church was in Jewry for some 14 hundred years; and seeing even of the Jews ten tribes were rejected; and of the remainder, but a few were of the Church; with great reason hath the Lord rejected those nations and people for so many ages, seeing they rejected God’s grace in falling away from the Gospel, which the Lord most graciously revealed unto them, rather than unto their fathers before them.
Is the cause of this Apostasy necessarily laid upon the See of Rome?
Yes, verily, as by the description that follows it will evidently appear.
What are the parts of this Apostasy?
The head and the body: for as Christ is the head of the Church, which is His body, so, too, the Pope is the head of the Romish Church, and it is his body.
How is this Antichristian head described unto vs?
First, he is described as to what he is toward others, and then, what he is toward himself.
What is he towards others?
This is declared by two special titles: the man of sin and son of perdition; declaring hereby, not so much his own sin and perdition, which is exceeding great; but more so of those who receive his mark, whom he causes to sin, and consequently, to fall into another perdition, (as Jeroboam, who is often branded with the mark of causing Israel to sin). Yet the Pope is so much more detestable than he, as both his idolatry is more execrable, and because he drew more kingdoms after him than Jeroboam did Tribes.
In what sense is he called the man of sin?
By causing many to sin; justifying sin, not by oversight, but by laws advisedly made; not only of a sort commanding the sins we are by our corrupt nature prone to, as spiritual and bodily fornication; but also permitting and teaching as lawful such as even man’s corrupt nature (not wholly subverted even through man’s enormous custom of sinning) abhorred, such as incestuous marriages, and the breaking of faith and leagues; which profane men (by the light of nature) detest, to the great profanation of the holy name and profession of Christ.
In what sense is he called the child of perdition?
Not as the prodigal son mentioned in the Gospel; neither as Judas, who is passively called the son of perdition; but actively, as it is otherwhere expounded, where he is called the destroyer [Rev. 9:11] because he destroyed many; whereunto some of his own secretaries agree, confessing that many well-disposed persons, before their entry into that See, became cursed and cruel beasts in the same, as if there were some pestilent poison in that place and seat.
What is to be learned from this?
Every office or calling which the Lord doth not bless, or which never having before existed, yet grows in piety [due to men’s traditions], is to be esteemed an unlawful calling, wherein at least some in all ages are not found profitable for the Church or Commonwealth.
Of what use is all these doctrinal truths?
We are to understand that whosoever partakes of the sins of Rome are also under the same curse, and that those of us who have lived in Popery should examine ourselves to determine if we have truly repented of it. First, by the change of our understanding; if we have grown in the knowledge of the truth. And secondly, of our affections: if we hate Popery and love the truth unfeignedly. And so, let every man judge himself, that he be not judged, as we must expect a harsher judgment, according to the long patience of God.
What further?
There can be no sound agreement between Popery and the profession of the Gospel; no more than there can be between light and darkness, falsehood and truth, God and Belial; and therefore, no reconciliation can be devised betwixt them. For if the members of Antichrist shall be destroyed, we cannot in any sense have communion with their errors, unless we, as well, join them in their destruction.
Why? doth every error destroy the soul?
No verily: for as every wound does not kill the man, so, too, every error does not necessarily deprive a man of salvation. But just as the wounded or infected vital parts bring death; so, too, do those errors that destroy the fundamental points and heads of the truth bring everlasting destruction; of which kind is Popery, for it overthrows sundry principles and grounds of our holy faith. Therefore, it is termed an apostasy, or departure from the faith.
Here then may be asked, Is it possible the Pope may be saved?
It is not impossible, his sin being not necessarily against the Holy Ghost, to which only repentance is denied: for some, no doubt, have entered that See ignorantly; and therefore, may find place for repentance.
Having described the Antichrist according to his actions towards others, what is he according to his actions regarding himself?
That is set down by two effects: First, that he is Christ’s vice regent; not by any right, but by usurpation; and therefore, also an adversary, since the Greek prefix ‘anti’ implies both. Thus, he so much more dangerous because he exercises his enmity under the color and pretense of Christ [‘s authority].
Wherein is he Christ’s adversary?
Every way; in life and in office.
How in life?
In that Christ being most pure, holy and holiness itself; the Popes, although in truth most filthy and abominable in blaspheming, conjuring, murdering, whoring, and that incestuously and Sodomitically, yet in titles they are to be called holy; yea, even as Christ, they are called holiness itself [i.e., ‘Holy Father’].
How in office?
First, in his kingdom: Christ’s kingdom is without all outward show or pomp; but the Pope’s kingdom consists wholly in pomp and show, as imitating his predecessors, the Emperors of Rome, and in his proud, stately, and lordly offices, Princely entourage and outrageous expenses of every sort.
How else in his office?
By his raising up a sacrifice other than Christ [in the Mass], as well as another priesthood than Christ [as high priest], and other mediators than Him [as the Virgin Mary].
Is there any other way wherein he taketh upon him the office of Christ?
Yes: in that he teaches clean contrary to Him: Christ taught nothing but what He received of His Father. The Pope setteth out his own canons and decrees of councils.
What is the second effect?
That he is exceedingly lifted up against all that is called God, which also proves the former exposition [2 Thess. 2:4] for Christ being very God, abased Himself unto the nature of man. The Pope, though a vile man, advances himself to the throne of God. Christ being above secular power, paid tribute, and was taxed, even in his mother’s womb [as did Levi]; and suffered Himself to be crowned with a crown of thorns, and bare His own crosse: But the Pope being under all secular power, exalts himself above all secular powers; exacting tribute from Kings; setting his foot on the neck of Emperors; wearing a triple crown of gold, and is borne upon men’s shoulders.
Is not the Pope humble, when he calleth himself the servant of servants?
No: for by his own Canonists he calls himself this, but deceitfully with hypocrisy, which is twice iniquitous. For they say that he doth in humility say so, not that he is really so in truth.
What other answer do they make to this objection?
His service, they claim, is strictly limited and tied only to that of Peter and Paul, so that he need not fear that by this [so-called] humiliation he will ever be put to much grief; seeing he hath wisely made himself servant to those that can ask nothing of him, and to whom he can perform nothing.
What are the effects of this his pride?
They are two: First, he sits in the Church as God, when he binds the consciences of men by his decrees, which no Prince’s laws, which are merely civil, can do. From such laws [his clergy] men are discharged of owing the payment of the penalty prescribed to them.
By this it seems that the Church of Rome is yet the Church of God, although corrupt, seeing it is said that the Pope sits in the temple of God?
Not in truth, for it bears only the name of it; for the Scripture giveth the name to a thing according to that which it hath been, as when Christ saith the abomination shall stand in the holy place; he does not mean that the temple was then holy, which at that time, being no figure nor shadow of Christ and his Church, was profaned, but that it had been holy: so we confess there had been a true Church in Rome, which is now no Church of Christ, but the Synagogue of Satan.
What is the other effect?
He boasts that he is God, as the Popes’ flatterers in the Canon law call him, ‘Our Lord God the Pope.’ Neither is his pride related only to the Church by his taking the name of God, but also, he takes things which are proper to God and applies them to himself; such as the title of ‘Holiness;’ also, the power to forgive sins, and the power to send infinite souls to hell without check or balance; the power to make from nothing something, and the scripture to be no scripture, and no scripture to be scripture at his pleasure; yea, to make of a creature the Creator [i.e., through the doctrine of Transubstantiation].
It seems to be an impossibility that men should be carried away from the faith of the Gospel by one so monstrous and directly opposite to Christ.
If he had shewed himself in such sort of foul colors all at once it might have been doubted; so therefore, it was slowly, by degrees of iniquity, he ultimately came to this [present] height of wickedness.
How is that?
The Apostle showed two courses the devil took to bring this to pass; one secret and covert, before this man of sin was revealed; the other, when he was revealed, and set up in his seat.
What were the [secret] ways of Antichrist’s coming before he was revealed?
By those several errors which were spread partly in the Apostles’ time, and partly after their time, thereby to make a way for his coming. And in this respect, this mystery of iniquity was begun to be wrought, as it were, underground and secretly in the Apostles’ time.
How was this mystery of iniquity wrought in the Apostles’ time?
By divers errors sown by heretics, as it were, petty Antichrists; in that some were desirous to be Lords over the Church, while some held Justification by works, some held the worshipping of Angels, others placed the centrality of their religion in what they ate, while some had a special admiration for virginity and disliking of marriage: all which were beginnings and grounds of Popery and Antichristianity.
What is to be gathered of all these?
That those whom God hath freed from the bondage of Popery should strive to free themselves from all the remnants thereof; lest if they still cleave to any one of them, God in judgement will bring the whole upon them again.
How shall his kingdom be continued and advanced after he is revealed?
By the power of Satan, in lying miracles and false wonders.
What difference is there between Christ’s miracles and theirs?
Very great in every way: for Christ’s miracles were true, whereas these are false and lying, as by legerdemain. Christ’s miracles were from God; but theirs, where there is anything strange and above the common reach of men [their intellect or common sense], they are from the devil. Christ’s miracles were for the most part profitable to the salvation of man, but theirs altogether unprofitable, and for a vain display. Christ’s miracles were to confirm the truth, but theirs to confirm falsehood.
What should we gather of this?
First, once discerning that the Pope’s Kingdom hangs upon wonders, one should understand it is most likely that he is Antichrist. Secondly, discerning that it is the false Christs and the false prophets who shall do great wonders to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect [Matt. 24:24], and that though some of the false prophets’ prophecies shall come to pass; we should not, therefore, believe the doctrine of Popery for their wonders sakes, seeing the Lord thereby tries our faith, having given to Satan great knowledge and power to work strange things, to bring those to damnation who are appointed unto it [Deut. 13]. Whatsoever miracles which are not profitable to do some good, or that tend not to confirm a truth, are false and lying; so that as the Lord left an evident difference between His miracles and the Enchantments of the Egyptians (Exodus 7), so has He left an evident difference between the miracles of Christ and His Apostles and those of the Romish Synagogue.
Are not miracles as necessary now as they were in the time of the Apostles?
No verily: for the doctrine of the Gospel being then new unto the world had need to be confirmed with miracles from heaven; but once confirmed there is no more need of miracles; and therefore, in keeping the same doctrine of Christ and His Apostles, we must content ourselves with the confirmation which hath already been given.
What truths arise out of this fact?
That the doctrine of Popery is a new doctrine, having need to be confirmed with new miracles; and so, it is not the doctrine of Christ, neither is it established by his [false] miracles.
How much power shall the miracles of Antichrist have?
Marvelously great to bring many men to damnation; God, in just revenge of their contempt of the truth, sending a strong delusion [2 Thess. 2:11].
Hitherto we have heard Antichrist described by his effects and properties. Now tell me where is the place where he should have his seat? [I.e., the headquarters of his ruling authority.]
The city of Rome.
How is that proved?
First, because he that letteth [restrained] at the time when Paul wrote, was the Emperor [2 Thess. 2:7]; who did then sit in power and must be removed before the Pope could assume power there. Secondly, John called that city where he must sit, the Lady of the world [Rev. 18:7]; which only agrees with Rome, being the mother city of the world [Rev. 17:5, 18]. Thirdly, it was that city that was seated upon seven hills [Rev. 17:9], which by all ancient records belongs properly and only to Rome. As for the occasion of the Popes being placed there, it came by the means of translating the seat of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople; from whence ensued the division of the Empire into two parts; by which division it was weakened, and afterward broken apart in the seat of the public’s affection, as well as in location, and so, was made easier for the Pope to enter and invade.
What do you further gather of that saying of the Apostle that “he that letteth shall let?”
That the Antichrist is not one particular man, as the Papists do fancy: for then by the like phrase ‘he that letteth’ must be one particular man; where it cannot be that one man should live so many hundred years; as from Paul’s time to the time of the translation of the Empire from Rome; much less until within two [sic: three] years and a half of the latter day [before the 2nd Coming of Christ] as they imagine the time of the Antichrist’s reign. [N.B. The Papists claimed Daniel 9:27 referred to the Antichrist.] And therefore, “him that letteth,” is understood as a succession of Emperors [who hold the office and title of Roman Emperor] not one man alone. Thus, by Antichrist the man of sin is understood to be a succession of men [reigning in the same office] and not only one man. In like manner, in Daniel 7:3 & 17, the four beasts and the four Kings do not signify four specific men, but four governments in which sundry men ruled. So that argument of the Papists, who upon the words, ‘the man of sin,’ they claim proves that the Antichrist the Apostle speaks of is but one single man, is but vain.
But how can Antichrist be already come, seeing the Empire yet standeth? [N.B. Rudolf II of Prague ruled as Holy Roman Emperor from 1576 to 1612.]
The name of the Empire only remains, the Empire itself is gone: for he hath neither the chief city, nor the tribute, nor the command over the people; and therefore, he can be no let [restraint] to the Antichrist’s coming; especially the Pope having gotten such an upper hand upon him, as to cause him to wait at his gate barefoot and to hold his stirrup. [N.B. In 1077, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV was excommunicated by Pope Gregory VII during the Investiture Controversy. He travelled to Canossa, Italy, and stood barefoot in the snow for three days to seek forgiveness from the Pope. The Pope’s cruel delayed response became a symbol of papal power and imperial humiliation.]
What shall be the end of this Antichrist?
God shall confound him with the breath of His mouth; that is, with the preaching of the word which proves the Pope to be Antichrist: for whereas he had subdued Kingdoms and Empires under his feet, he hath been mightily suppressed by the word preached, and not by outward force, as other potentates are.
What should we learn from this?
The marvelous power of God’s word to suppress whatsoever rises against it: for if the mightiest cannot stand before it, much less the smallest. Therefore, it is expressed by a mighty wind, which sweeps away all in its presence; and by fire which consumes and pierces all. And it declares a marvelously easy victory against the enemies, when it says that “with the breath of his mouth shall consume his enemies.”
What else shall cause the overthrow of Antichrist?
The glorious appearance of the Son of God in the latter day.
What should we gather of this day?
That before the last day the Antichrist shall not be utterly consumed; whereof notwithstanding, it follows not that the head [Antichrist] shall remain till then: but rather that some shall have a similarity to him, even till the last day: for the Beast and the false Prophet shall be taken and cast into the fire before the latter day [Rev. 19:20].
Hitherto of the head of this general apostasy. Who are the members of his body?
They are first described by their end, [i.e., by a synecdoche in which these two represent the destruction of the whole body]; which agrees to that property of the head, the destroyer, or son of perdition, being truly effectually destroyed in them.
What is the importance of this truth?
That since no poison can take away the life of an elect: so, too, seemingly insignificant circumstances can carry away such as are appointed to destruction.
Is it a proof of reprobation to be carried away with an error?
It is no certain proof, but a sign, especially if the means of transmission is weak and slight.
How else are these rotten members of Antichrist described?
By the fact that they never loved the truth [2 Thess. 2:10], although they understood it and professed it.
How should a man love the truth?
For the truth’s sake; not for vain glory, fleshly delight or convenience.
How does it appear that men love the word of God?
When they walk accordingly and keep faith with a good conscience; which some, by their wicked life, also lose their faith; that is, their religion.
How is it to be understood, that God giueth men up to strong delusions? [2 Thess 2:11]
Because God is a just Judge, who either punishes or corrects former sins, and especially the contempt of the Gospel; in which regard, even amongst us now, some are cast into the cesspool of Popery; some into the [heretical] Family of Love; some become Arians; some Anabaptists: all which are, as it were, various gaols and dungeons: whereinto he throws those that are cold and careless professors of the Gospel.
What can be learned by this truth?
Those who imagine God’s favor unto them notwithstanding their sins because their life, or goods, or honors are spared, are badly deceived: rather, when the Lord ceaseth to reprove any, or to strive with them, then doth he give them up into vanity of their own minds to do what their wicked will desires.
What is our duty in such cases?
To pray unto the Lord to keep us from all error: but if for our trial, or further hardening of others, it pleases him to send errors amongst us, that it would please him to preserve us in that danger, that we taste not of that bait, whereby Satan seeketh to hook us.
What other cause is there of sending these errors?
That those may be damned, which believe not the truth: for as God hath appointed them to damnation [double predestination], so betwixt his counsel in rejecting them and the final effect of it, there must be sin to bring that effect justly upon them. [N.B. By withholding grace not owed anyone, the reprobate will assuredly sin and continue in unbelief, thus resulting in eternal punishment.]
What reason is annexed to their just damnation?
Because they rest in unrighteousness, having their ears itching for error, which they readily drink, as the earth drinks up rain, or the fish water. So that although the delusion is powerfully sent of God to them in His just judgement, yet, at the same time, they also greedily desire and have a fondness for it.
THE END
Be First to Comment