« EdellinenJatka »
solemn occasion it cannot be pretended he worshipped the cherubim, because his face was not directed to them but to the Shekinah or visible glory of the Lord manifested above, the
mercyseat and between the cherubim.
The next passage produced in the Catechism to justify image worship, is Matth. ix. The particular verse is not quoted, but I presume it is the 20th and two following, where the woman with an issue of blood, was cleansed upon touching our Saviour's garment. Now, it were surely better for the Church of Rome at once to confess her guilt, and turn from her idolatries, than thus to add to the sin of idolatry, the awful crime of perverting the Scriptures, in order to palliate or excuse her of fences.- We ask: How can the fact of a woman being cured in consequence of touching our Saviour's garment when he was alive upon earth, justify the worship of a piece of carved wood or painted can. vas called after Him, now that He is ascended into heaven, and this in express violation of the second commandment? What is there common to the two cases? The same remarks apply to Acts xix. 12, the third text quoted in the Catechism. And with respect to John iii. 14, which is produced for the like purpose of justifying the worship of images. I observe, that if the brazen serpent was intended to be an object of worship, then this worship must have had respect to the living serpents, which it represented; and it will follow on this hypothesis, that God himself, did command his people to worship serpents !-Such are the shocking consequences which flow from the perversion of saered Scripture, by the Church of Rome. But it is manifest that the brazen serpent, was like the cherubim, an hieroglyphic; and it most probably signified, the bruising of the head of that old ser pent, the Devil, by our Lord when he hung uponi the cross, and there spoiled principalities and powers.*
I shall now close this chapter, with one remark. It may appear at first view, strange and wonderful, to those Protestants who are little acquainted with the character of the Church of Rome, that she should venture to quote the Scriptures of truth in justification of a practice, which is so palpable a violation of the Divine law, as that of image worship. But let such persons reflect, that the great enemy of God and man in tempting our Lord in the wilderness, did also make use of the language of Scripture for that purpose.
* Colos. ii. 14, 15.
A POSITION LAID DOWN, THAT THE PAPAL POWER IS THE
MAN OF SIN. THE OBJECTIONS OF THE REV, MR. CAL
DERBANK TO THE PROTESTANT DOCTRINE OF ANTI
CHRIST, STATED AND ANSWERED.
In the preceding chapters it has been proved, that the charge of idolatry made by Protestants against the Church of Rome, is justified by the practices of that corrupt communion, and that by this idolatry was accomplished, the falling away or Apostasy in the Church, predicted by St. Paul, in his second epistle to the Thessalonians. I now proceed to the consideration of the second proposed object of enquiry, viz: What power' was intend. ed by the man of sin, mentioned in St. Paul's prophecy? On this subject I shall endeavour to show that the characteristical marks of that man of sin and son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he as God, sitteth in the temple of God, &c, are all to be found in the Papacy, and consequently that the Papal power is the man of sin.
Before, however, that I enter on the direct proof of this position, it will be necessary for me to
consider some arguments against it, which are to be found in the Series of Letters, by a Catholic Clergyman, which have already been frequently mentioned. The Rev. Mr. Calderbank endeavours in his 24th letter, to show “the absurdity “ of the opinion, which supposes the Pope to be “ Antichrist.” After some general observations, through which I do not consider it necessary to follow him, he thus states his grounds for rejecting the Protestant exposition, of St. Paul's prophecy of the man of sin." From the passage “ of St. Paul.” (2 Thess. ii.) “ it appears evi. « dent, that Antichrist is destined to be some one “ individual or other, and from the unanimous “ testimony of the ancient fathers, it also appears “ that his coming into the world, will take place “at some time, which is not very remote from the “period of its general destruction. From the “ authority of St. Paul, it is moreover evident, “ that he will announce himself not only as the “avowed enemy of Christ, and of his religion, “ and the most sanguinary persecutor
persecutor of his “ Church, but will attempt to substitute him. “ self in his place, and usurp the honour, and the “ worship, which are due to no object but the
supreme majesty of God.”
After having in these words laid down the principles 'upon which he considers himself en-, titled to interpret the prophecy of St. Paul, Mr. Calderbank proceeds to reason from these prin. ciples, as if they were quite undeniable; and certainly if the assumed premises be granted, the conclusion must follow, that the Papal power is not the man of sin.
I shall now, however, proceed to shew that the principles thus taken for granted, have no foundation in the Scriptures, and consequently that, the superstructure raised upon them, must fall to the ground.
It is assumed in the passage above quoted, that the power described by St. Paul, is to be some « one individual or other." -It is true that he is styled in the prophecy " that man of sin, the son “of perdition,” the language is therefore in the singular number. But it does not hence follow, that a single individual is intended. In Dan. vii, 17. the four beasts which were symbolical representations of the four Gentile Monarchies, are called “four kings," a king being used for an empire. In Heb. ix. 7, 25, the high priest in the singular number, is used for the series, or order