CHAPTER XI.

THE CHARACTER OF THE LITTLE HORN.

THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.

DAN. VII. 8.-" AND BEHOLD, IN THIS HORN WERE EYES LIKE THE EYES OF MAN, AND A MOUTH SPEAKING GREAT THINGS.

20.-" EVEN OF THAT HORN THAT HAD EYES, AND A MOUTH THAT SPAKE VERY GREAT THINGS, WHOSE LOOK WAS MORE STOUT THAN HIS FELLOWS.

24, 25.-" AND HE SHALL BE DIVERSE FROM THE FIRST, AND SHALL SUBDUE THREE KINGS. AND HE SHALL SPEAK GREAT WORDS AGAINST THE MOST HIGH, AND SHALL WEAR OUT THE SAINTS OF THE MOST HIGH, AND THINK TO CHANGE TIMES AND LAWS."

AFTER the description of the rise of the Little Horn, the vision proceeds next to unfold its character and pretensions, its judgment and fall. The uprooting of the three horns has been shewn to answer exactly to those steps by which the Papacy rose to temporal dominion. We have now to inquire whether the later history of that power answers equally to the rest of the description; or whether here, for the first time, the connexion is suddenly broken, and the prophecy requires us to vault over twelve hundred years, and to wait for some future power in whom it may be fulfilled.

The chief notes by which the little horn is here described to us are the following-a place within the body of the fourth empire; a time of rise soon after the division of that empire by a ten-fold separation; a character diverse from other kingdoms; the pretensions of a seer and a prophet; boastfulness and persevering arrogance; great words spoken against the Most High;

persecution of the saints, and the claim of a supreme authority over times and laws. The four first of these notes evidently, and beyond all question, meet in the Roman papacy. The others may perhaps be summed up in two main characters-boastful claims to Divine authority and absolute dominion; and systematic persecution of the saints of God. Let us now examine the direct evidence, by which both these characters are fixed upon the Bishop of Rome. No reasonable doubt can there remain concerning the true object of the prophecy. It will be seen to be a plain and strong warning from the Holy Spirit of God, against the ensnaring and subtle delusions of the Church of Rome.

In this stage of inquiry, more than ever, it is a solemn duty to proceed with reverence and caution. The issues at stake are the most weighty and momentous that can well be conceived. If the high claims of the Church of Rome are solid and true, to deny them is of itself a fatal heresy ; but to apply to that Church the symbols of the prophecy must amount to an impious blasphemy. If, on the other hand, the prediction before us really belongs to that power; not only are the claims of the papacy a wicked and impious delusion, but the sin of those Protestants is great, who on light or frivolous grounds pervert this testimony of the Holy Ghost from its true purpose, as a Divine warning against a subtle and ruinous delusion. It seems needful then, first of all, to examine briefly the direct evidence on which the papal supremacy is made to rest. We may afterwards, with more confidence, inquire into the fulfilment of the prophecy, and compare the actual claims of the Pope, in his public and solemn laws, with expressive language of the sacred text.

The doctrine of papal supremacy is founded on reasonings of the following nature. The Church militant on earth is a visible body, and under Christ, must have officers by whom it is visibly governed. These, as revealed in Scripture, are bishops, presbyters, and deacons, to be ordained by solemn imposition of hands.

Their authority must depend on a regular appointment by those who have authority to ordain, and thus be derived, in unbroken succession, from the Apostles. Again, unity is a great duty, which the word of God urges and enforces in the strongest terms. This unity, in a body politic like the visible Church, requires subordination and a supreme governing power. The simplest and most natural form of government is a monarchy; and hence we may infer that such a form has, directly or indirectly, been provided for the Church.

Now if a monarchy be the most perfect form of the Church, we must next inquire what hints Scripture gives us, to explain where this supreme power, this ultimate appeal, must reside. And here it is evident that, among the twelve apostles, Peter commonly holds the first place, and is singled out, on several occasions, for distinct and especial notice. Such are the words of Christ- -"Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." "Take it, and give it unto them for thee and for me." Three times a distinct charge is given to him by name over the sheep of Christ. Hence, if there be a visible princedom in the Church, he will doubtless have the fairest claim to be its fountain head. But this can extend to later ages, only by supposing the episcopal see of St. Peter still to retain and continue this pre-eminence. Now, although the see of that Apostle was for many years at Antioch, there is a general tradition that he was martyred at Rome. Therefore the Roman Church is the see of the prince of Apostles, inherits his supremacy, and exercises dominion, by Divine right, over the whole visible Church of God. And hence the Bishop of Rome, by virtue of his office, must be supposed infallible in definitions of faith; else he would be unfit for the weighty charge entrusted to him, the promises to the Church would fail, and we should be flung back once more into all the conflicting claims of private judgment, and be unable to secure in the Church any sure standard of final appeal.

On such foundations that immense building is reared, which has now lasted for ages, and still holds captive the faith of a large portion, perhaps a majority, of nominal Christians. It includes these three main pillars; that union under one visible head is the most perfect, and therefore the divinely intended form of the Church; that the Scripture texts relating to Peter cannot be inserted by chance, but must imply some permanent lesson of Church order; and, finally, that Rome has an historical claim to be accounted his latest

see.

The first maxim is that from which the two others derive all their moral power. If we were once certain that the Church ought to have the form of a visible monarchy, the texts relating to St. Peter, however scanty in themselves, might give him a claim, above any other, to be its fountain-head. And when the choice lay only between Antioch and Rome, even a slight tradition might suffice to ensure the conviction, that the latter, not the former, was the divinely intended seat and centre of unity to the Church. But if the first maxim itself is baseless, not merely the whole chain is broken in its first link, but the two other assumptions are found also to be loaded with difficulties, historical, critical, and doctrinal, which condemn the whole as a groundless fiction, as a mere fable of human invention, without any warrant in the sure word of God.

Now there can be no doubt that complete subjection to one visible head will be the last and highest condition of the Church, when all its members shall be gathered together in the kingdom of God. The question relates, not to the present or final state of the Church triumphant, but to the outward form of the militant Church below; that generation which, from time to time, is called to the faith of Christ, and travels through the world to its final inheritance. This Church may be viewed in three different aspects, as part of the true Church universal, as a system of Divine ordinances and means of grace, and as a visible company of the baptized.

In the first and highest aspect of the Church militant, it is properly invisible, since faith, sincerity and holiness, are objects not sensible to the natural eye. Viewed in this light, it is only a part of the Church universal. It is joined with all the departed saints in one blissful fellowship, of which Christ, and Christ only, is the glorious head. In proportion as any member of the Church on earth rises into this high standing of faith, he holds direct communion with the truth of God; the will of Christ, seen clearly in His word, becomes his sufficient guide, and human ordinances become more and more needless, while the law of God, in its spiritual power and fulness, is engraven on his heart. There is here no place for a visible outward monarchy. Just so far as the Christian is a Christian indeed, he has risen above the strife of corruption and the stubbornness of self-will, into that pure light and love of heaven, where no name but the name of Christ has authority or dominion.

But the Church is also a system of ordinances, divine in their main outlines, human in their minor details; designed for the good of Christians, and the means whereby grace, truth, and holiness, may be imparted to their souls. Here, if uniformity is to be secured, there is need of one visible head, one supreme and controlling power. But the question recurs, Is such uniformity desirable in its own nature, or enjoined in the word of God? The answer to each part of the inquiry is the same. If these ordinances were an end in themselves, and not means to the edification of the Church, then it might be needful to enjoin a strict conformity to the same order, through every tribe, nation, and family of the visible Church. But this is not their nature. They are means, and need therefore to be adapted to the varying state of nations and communities. They have, it is true, some elements which are fixed by Christ's appointment; because, though changeable in themselves, His wisdom foresaw that they were adapted to every age of the Church in this dispensation. But