In chapters’ 1 – 4 (block 1), we demonstrate that the four pillars of dispensationalism cannot be sustained by the unity of the scriptures. Dispensationalism has tremendous theological and exegetical problems within the boundaries of their own system. Serious Bible students have noticed the incongruities and self-contradictions of that system as an insolvable problem, for there are those who see the system as an obstruction that blocks a true understanding of God’s Holy Bible. The problem—in its multifarious nature—of dispensationalism, which we have analyzed, becomes only a secondary problem compared to a larger problem of its function. Dispensational futurism, in its essence, is a device created to hide the identity of the Antichrist. It is a system that does not truly expose Satan to the world. It is a system, which pretends to exalt Christ; while at the same time allows the Antichrist power to grow more and more powerful— undetected. Thus, it is a system that aids the Antichrist. From this chapter to the end of the course, we uncloak the veil of the greatest deception in Christendom, a deception that has prepared the minds of many evangelicals to accept the system of the Antichrist as the divine providence of God. We uncover the fact that multitudes of evangelicals have been misguided into a false security in their prophetic stance of the Antichrist. The system of dispensationalism places the majority of the book of Revelation and like prophecies in the book of Daniel into a small fragment of time of seven years at the end of the age. Consequently, the prophecies relating to the Antichrist are made to have their focal point of fulfillment in that seven-year period. The Church age is believed to be the restrainer of the Antichrist, for it is believed that the Antichrist cannot come until the Church is removed from the world. We have already eliminated these dispensational concepts from the equation of factualness; but nevertheless, we must go deeper into the essence of the dispensational misunderstanding to unravel the greatest deception that has ever existed among mankind; a deception that is so vast in magnitude and so cleverly developed that only the elect of God can truly see this deception for what it truly is. This chapter to the end of the course will completely reveal what is being said in this paragraph. What is the main problem with the dispensational futurist methodology of interpreting prophecy? Concerning the identity of the Antichrist through the number 666 (Rev. 13:18), John Hagee, a prominent dispensational speaker, tells us: “This information about how to identify the Antichrist is of no practical value to the Church since we will be watching from the balconies of heaven by the time he is revealed” (Beginning Of The End, 135). “O” how sad! This is truly sad…that a man of his talents can be so thoroughly mislead about such an important issue. It is unfortunate that today—for millions—the system of 666 has been camouflaged by false prophetic theologies. Today, there are millions of Protestants who are looking for the Antichrist to meet his fulfillment in a fictitious 7-year tribulation. We say with all earnestness, this is an imaginary antichrist. The system of Antichrist and his number in much of Christendom today has been minimized into a micro-chip that is to be placed in the foreheads and hands of the world

By D. S. Farris



(see Hagee, Beginning Of The End, 118, 119). The devil must be filled with ebullience in knowing that most of Christendom has not the slightest idea what the system of Antichrist truly is. Even more tragic for the Christian world is the fact that while looking for the Antichrist to come in the imaginary way, prescribed by dispensational theology, the Antichrist and his number has already filled the Church. Little do many Christians, today, realize that the devil has joined the Church. The devil sits in the front rows in the churches; he even preaches from the pulpit. It is true that—while recognizing the omnipotence of God—we should not over estimate the powers of evil over and against God’s power. But while we do not over estimate Satan’s power, we should never underestimate his power. We must raise the question: Could Satan have—with the cunning of the serpent—brought the system of “666” into Christendom without detection? Now, over a length of two chapters (chaps. 5 and 6) we will endeavor to unfold and understand the system of Antichrist. We will see that dispensationalists are sadly mistaken to think that “666” cannot be identified yet. We will see that it is dispensational prophetic projections into a future seven year period that is blinding the world away from the fact that the Antichrist and his number has already made his appearance and is gaining power quickly. Protestantism (For a good history of Protestantism, go to following web site: Protestant History) We were warned in Acts 20:28 – 31 that false teachers would arise from within the Church who would lead people into perverted truths. In 1 John 2:18, 19 we learn that the main Antichrist was preceded by the “many” miniature antichrists. We read:
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

John told us that these antichrists came out from within the Church and manifested themselves as something different from the true Church. If the “many” antichrists came from within the Church, it is logical to conclude that the main Antichrist too would come from and out of the Church. In the days of the Papal supremacy, there were Roman Catholics who began to identify the Papacy as being the great apostasy (Falling Away) foretold in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, and they saw that the Pope was fulfilling the position of the man of lawlessness in verse 4. These Catholic men, who still maintained loyalty to Christ, were able to coincide 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4 and 1 John 2:18, 19 with the reality of the Catholic Church’s apostasy. They realized that the great “falling away” had taken place in Christendom, and the man of lawlessness had manifested himself as the head of a church that had corrupted the gospel of Christ. These men were called Protestants, because they protested against the corruption of the Papacy. Many of these protesters sought to reform the Catholic Church, but realized that they could not reform the Antichrist. This was the
Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

opinion, for example, of the English Reformer and martyr, Nicholas Ridley (1500 –1555) who emphasized: “Yea, what fellowship hath Christ with Antichrist? Therefore is it not lawful to bear the yoke with papists. ‘Come forth from among them, and separate yourselves from them, saith the Lord” (Coferences . . . Between Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer,” in The Works of Nicholas Ridley, 124). We learn that another English Reformer, Hugh Latimer (1490 – 1555) was burned at the stake with Ridley in 1555 for denouncing and separating themselves from the Roman Antichrist. This is where we get the famous quote from Latimer as both he and Ridley were going up in the flames together: “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man: we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out” (Hugh Latimer, Sermons by Hugh Latimer: “Memoir of Hugh Latimer,” xiii). Realizing that there could be no reclamation of the Papal, Antichrist system, caused these protesters to separate from Rome. We will ask: What was the Protestant Reformation? The Protestant Reformation was a movement that saw in the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation the very attributes of the Papacy. We are told by Dr. Leroy Froom that the Reformation was founded on a twofold discovery: “first, the rediscovery of Christ and His salvation; and second, the discovery of the identity of Antichrist and his subversions” (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 243). Concerning the rediscovery of the gospel through the scriptures and the identity of the Papacy as the Antichrist, Froom emphasizes:
The reformers were unanimous in its acceptance. And it was this interpretation of prophecy that lent emphasis to their reformatory action. It led them to protest against Rome with extraordinary strength and undaunted courage. It nerved them to resist to the utmost the claims of the apostate church. It sustained them at the martyrs’ stake (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 243, 244).

It was men like the German reformer and founder of the Lutheran Church, Martin Luther (1483 – 1546), who discovered through a comparison between the prophetic word and the Papacy that she is the Antichrist:
I am practically cornered, and can hardly doubt any more, that the Pope is really the Antichrist, whom the world expects according to a general belief, because everything so exactly corresponds to the way of his life, action, words, and commandments (Dr. Martin Luther‘s, Sammtliche Schriften. Edited by Joh[ann] Georg Walch. ( St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1881 -1910.), Vol 21a, col. 234)

The French Reformer and founder of the Presbyterian Church, John Calvin (1509 – 1564), discovered that the Antichrist was to come through the Church:
Some people think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt.

From the same place, Calvin maintained that he adopted Paul’s language of identifying the Antichrist to the Church:



And in the next place, that this tyranny (That of the Papacy) is one which does not abolish the name of Christ or of his Church, but rather abuses the authority of Christ, and conceals itself under the character of the Church, as under a mask. Now, though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul predicts an approaching apostasy, he signifies by this description that the seat of abomination shall then be erected when a universal defection shall have seized the church . . . But when he adds, that even in his days “the mystery of iniquity” did “already work” in secret, what it was afterwards to effect in a more public manner, he gives us to understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate with one man (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, 410, 411).

The reason that the Reformers were able to identify the Papacy as the Antichrist is because of the way they interpreted the scriptures. There was no such thing as the system of dispensationalism prior to the 19th century. The evangelicals of the past used the whole Bible as the testimony of God’s will. The Protestants did not chop up the scriptures into sections that belong exclusively to the Jew, while other scriptures apply exclusively to the Church. They understood that prophecy belonged to God’s people as a whole, for they envisioned God’s people as being one people from Adam to the close of time. The Reformers believed that the Church was the continuation of the Everlasting Covenant, which had been brought to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David (see chapter 3). Because of Protestantism’s understanding of the unity of the saints and the unity of the scriptures, they applied Prophecy as a continual process of fulfillment until the close of time. Said another way; to the Reformers, Prophecy had been fulfilled, it was being fulfilled, and it was going to be fulfilled. This definition is where we gain the name for the school of Prophetic interpretation called, Historicism (to see an internet library of Historicism, click on: Historicism becomes the logical approach to prophecy when it has been discovered that dispensational theology on Israel is faulty, for when the whole Bible is used together—without artificial divisions between scripture and God’s people—there is no longer a need to place Prophecy at the end of time as something mainly for the Jew. Froom explains the logic of applying Historicism to prophecy, rather than Futurism:
Futurism removes the application from the tangible check of historical fulfillment where it can be tested, and gets it into the future where necessarily imaginative treatment of predicted but as yet unfulfilled events cannot be checked against anything solid or historical as a guide. It is therefore without limit as to the speculative possibilities that can scarcely be gainsaid. If literalism leads to absurdities, futurity of application leads to fantasy (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, Appendices, 802).

The Reformers understood that Paul and John applied the mystery of lawlessness as something that had already begun in their day. They understood that Paul envisioned the mystery of lawlessness as something that was to gradually gain size until a great falling away (apostasy) took place in the Church; this was to initiate that actual man of lawlessness. The Reformers were able to see this as an established reality in their day.

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

They realized that the New Testament scriptures apply the “Temple (Naos) of God” as being the body of Christ. Therefore, it was obvious to them that the Pope was sitting in the temple (the body of Christ) making himself God on earth. They did not separate Paul’s temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 from other New Testament descriptions (1 Cor. 3:9 – 17; Eph. 2:20, 21).
Old Testament Sanctuary God's presence manifested God Tabernacled With Exodus 40: 9 - 16 Exodus 40: 35, 36 Us In Jesus Christ John 1: 14 Christ's Body Is The Shrine John 2: 19 - 21 1 Corinthians 12: 13, 27 Ephesians 1: 22, 23 The Church Is Christ's Body The Church Is The Shrine

The Church Is The Temple Of God The Church Is The Davidic Ephesians 2: 21, 22 1 Peter 2: 5 1 Corinthians 3: 9 - 17 Temple Acts 15: 14 - 17 The Antichrist Has And Will Manifest Himself In The Church 2 Thessalonians 2: 3, 4

Martin Luther, for example, did not believe the temple to be some building in Jerusalem:
The Antichrist sits in the temple of God and professes to be God, as Paul has proclaimed, and changes all divine order as Daniel says, and suppresses Holy Writ, sells dispensations, indulgences, pallia, bishoprics, tenures, takes taxes, dissolves marriages, burdens the conscience with his laws, makes and annuls laws for the sake of money. [Translated from: Passional Christi und Antichristsi mit Bildern von Lucas Cranach dem Alteren, 41).

To Luther, the Abomination of Desolation was not to be a future occurrence in some Jerusalem building. Identifying the Papacy as Babylon and identifying Babylon as the Abomination of Desolation, Luther declared where this was manifested: “He sitteth in the temple of God (that means, in the midst of christendom), showing himself that he is God” (Luther’s sammtliche Werke, Vol. 24, 161). The Bohemian Reformer, John Huss (1369 – 1415) was condemned at the Council of Constance (1414 – 1418) and then burned at the stake. Why did this happen to him? He believed that Daniel’s Abomination of Desolation had taken place in the Papacy: “Surely now the wickedness, iniquity, and baseness of Antichrist has been revealed in the Pope and his associates in the Council: now the faithful servants of God can understand the meaning of the Saviour’s words, When ye shall see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, . . .he that readeth, let him understand” (John Huss, The Letters of John Hus, 258). Obviously, the Protestants of the Reformation era had different ideas about the Antichrist, ideas different than what is believed in the popular evangelical churches of this century. Though some of the symbols in Daniel and Revelation were used to represent the rise of Islam, the Reformers applied the majority of the symbols to the Papacy. The Reformers did not come to all truth in their day, for it took over one thousand years for Christendom to get as confused as it was in falsehood. God rose up Protestantism to revive an understanding of the unity of the scriptures, the true Gospel as described in Romans and



Galatians, and the identity of the Antichrist. God rose up Protestantism to set a pattern for the correct procedure of interpretation. They were to set a stage that would be more and more perfected over time by God’s people. Those in the 19th century, who developed the system of dispensationalism and combined it with an already existing system of futurism, abandoned the Historical position for a mythical system. As we are going to see in chapter eight, modern dispensationalism is a product of the Jesuit order and the pseudapigraphal writings. The Jesuits needed a speedy resolution to destroy the Protestant understanding of prophecy, so they borrowed ideas from certain Church fathers—stemming back to extra-biblical sources, which are contrary to the true Bible. Though we are not going to elucidate on this issue now, we want to emphasize that dispensational futurists are in possession of a system, which is completely mythical in its origins. The Jesuits are the architects of the futurist system, and the main foundation of that system is found in the Beliar myth. Beliar was a mythical anti-messiah—a man possessing all the power of the devil—who was to come and persecute the Jews before the first Advent. This character was intermingled with a distorted version of the 70 weeks found in the TESTAMENT OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS, a pseudapigraphal work in existence over a hundred years before the first Advent of Christ. The Reformers sought to eliminate the pseudepigraphal myths of Beliar and find the true meaning of prophecy; they were on the right track as we are going to see. Historicism, as a system, is congruous with the nature of God. God’s nature is described in Revelation 1:4, 8 as being: “He who is and who was and who is to come.” Consequently, the fulfillment of prophecy has this nature as Revelation 1:19 describes: “Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.” Hence, the things written in Revelation pertain to the past, present, and future. The Reformers came to realize that prophecy moves progressively, for prophecy is in alignment with the nature of God. The prophecies in Daniel and Revelation span the Church period and pertain to the Church. This is why Revelation 22:16 says, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things (the prophecies in Revelation) in the churches.” Futurism on the other hand makes the nature of God and prophecy inexplicable, for it makes prophecy an enigma of the most grotesque speculation. Futurism is not founded upon a solid principle of prophecy based on past to present fulfillments of realities which define future realities; it simply jumps from past to future—leaving the present unchecked—thus the future really cannot be understood as anything other than mirages of human speculation.

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

Daniel 2:31 – 38 AND Daniel 7:4

Daniel 2:39 AND Daniel 7:5

Daniel 2:39 AND Daniel 7:6

Daniel 2:40 AND Daniel 7:7, 23
Note: Dispensationalists more or less have the continuance or Rome up to the 70th week.
[If the reader wishes to see a study on the symbols of the four world powers, go to]


PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST The Ten Divisions Of Rome

The system of dispensationalism accepts the parallelism of the world kingdoms depicted as a great metallic image in Daniel 2 and the four beasts in Daniel 7. They accept the fact that the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman Empires came consecutively. This is good. For this reason we do not need to elaborate on the symbols representing the four major kingdoms depicted in Daniel. However, dispensationalists insist that the 10 toes of Daniel 2 and the 10 horns of Daniel 7, with the rising of the little horn power, has somehow been broken off of the progressive role of prophetic fulfillment and awaits the (non-existent in our day) seven year tribulation (See Clarence Larkin, The Book Of Daniel, 117 – 131. Also, see his chart on p. 202 and 114 – 117). This is the “Gap Theory.” We have already proved throughout this course that there is no “split theory” second coming of Christ around a seven year period (see chap. 1) neither is the 70 th week of Daniel 9 applicable to the future; that week was perfectly fulfilled between A.D. 27 – 34 (see chap. 2). Therefore, it becomes vain to try to make the absolute fulfillment of the 10 divisions of Rome—with the rising of the little horn—applicable to a non-existent time frame. Vain to is the idea that Daniel’s prophecies would be consecutive only up to the Roman Empire. Common sense, logic, and the plain illustrations of Daniel’s prophecies demonstrate clearly that Daniel’s outline of world kingdoms did not stop at Rome— awaiting the fictitious seven year tribulation; but rather, these prophecies have continuously and progressively been fulfilled throughout Church history and will continue until the close of time. Clarence Larkin, has the fulfillment of the ten divisions of Rome as something that takes place in the future tribulation. He asserts, “These ‘TEN TOES’ have not as yet manifested themselves, so the historical fulfillment of the Image is not yet complete” (Clarence Larkin, The Book Of Daniel, 48). In his chart, he has the iron legs of the great metallic image stretching all the way up through Church history to the tribulation with the ten toes meeting their fulfillment in that seven-year period. (The iron legs of that statue are not that long.) We can hardly believe how blatantly dispensationalists overlook historical realities. They overlook the fact that this division has already taken place. The ten toes of Daniel 2:41 – 43 or the ten horns of Daniel 7:7, 20, 24 are not awaiting some future arrival. This division came about between the years A.D. 376 – 476. We learn from Will Durant the following:
In the heart of Europe—bounded by the Vistula, the Danube, and the Rhine— moved the restless tribes that were to remake the map, and rename the nations, of Europe: Thuringians, Burgundians, Anglo Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Gepidae,

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One
Quadi, Vandals, Alemanni, Suevi, Lombards, Franks (Will Durant, THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION: The Age Of Faith, 22).

According to Durant, Europe took form between the years’ 325 – 529 (see The Age Of Faith, 80). C. Mervyn Maxwel explains when the big invasion of Rome began to move with power:
In 376 a large population of uncivilized Visigoths received official permission to cross the River Danube into the territory of the Roman Empire. “They poured across the stream day and night, without ceasing, embarking in troops on board ships and rafts, and in canoes made of the hollow trunks of trees.” “The man who should wish to ascertain their number,” wrote the contemporary historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, quoting Virgil, “might as well . . .attempt to count the waves in the African Sea, or the grains of sand tossed about by the zephyrs (GOD CARES VOL. 1: The Message of Daniel, 129).

Question: What caused the Visigoths to cross the Danube? In A.D. 355 the Huns absorbed the Russian Alani and dramatically grew in number. By the year 372, the Huns were powerful enough to cross the Volga into the Ukraine and fight against the Ostrogoths. After the Ostrogothic leader, Ermanaric, was killed, the Huns made their way to the Dniester to meet the Visigothic challenge. After being defeated, “a remnant of the Visigoths begged permission of the Roman authorities on the Danube to cross the river and settle in Moesia and Thrace” (Durant, The Age Of Faith, 24). The Romans knew that the Visigoths wanted to cross out of fear of the Huns, so the Roman authorities capitalized on this fear for the purpose of exploitation. “The Emperor Valens sent word that they should be admitted on condition that they surrender their arms, and give up their youths as hostages” (Durant, The Age Of Faith, 24). The Visigoths were allowed to keep their arms but their children were sold into slavery to buy food. The Romans made it so hard on the Goths that “food was sold them at famine prices, so that hungry Goths gave ten pounds of silver, or a slave, for a joint of meat or a loaf of bread” (Durant, The Age Of Faith, 24). This denuding of the Visigoths lead them into such rage (probably the rage of demons) that in 378 they destroyed two thirds of the Roman army on the plains of Hadrianople. Rome had not experienced a defeat of such magnitude in 594 years. The Emperor and his attendants attempted to hide in a cottage, and they were burned to death. Question: What followed the defeat of Valens? Roman provinces were continuously invaded. In the year 406 great masses of Vandals, Alani, and Suevi crossed the Rhine and brought great devastation to Gaul. They sacked and pillaged cities all the way up to the English Channel. By the year 409 these tribes numbered 100, 000. They made their way to Spain, one of the most prosperous provinces of Rome and plundered that city for two years. The conquest of these tribes extended all the way to the coast of Africa (See Durant, The Age Of Faith, 37). During these invasions, Alaric and the Visigoths took control of the city of Rome in 410 (According to Durant, The Age Of Faith, 27, Alaric had attacked Rome once before in 401). It was the first time in 800 years that an enemy had taken control of the actual city of Rome. Following Alaric’s besieging of Rome, tremendous death followed as the Huns came into Rome. “It was found almost impossible to bury all the corpses that littered the streets” (Durant, The Age Of Faith, 36).



Conquests against Rome and her provinces continued through the years. Gaiseric and his Vandal army made their base in Carthage North Africa in 439. It was said of Gaiseric that he built a great naval fleet in Africa where he launched great invasions against coastal Roman provinces. Durant says, “No one could tell where his cavalryladen ships would land next; never in Roman history had such unhindered piracy prevailed in the western Mediterranean” (The Age Of Faith, 38). In the year 455, Gaiseric brought his navy to the city of Rome. Persuaded not to massacre, torture, and burn buildings, Gaiseric pillaged the riches of Rome. He took the “seven-branched candlesticks and other sacred vessels of Solomon’s Temple brought to Rome by Titus four centuries before,” says Durant (The Age Of Faith, 41) along with all conceivable things of value including human captives. During this period of time different tribes sacked and pillaged the Roman Empire until Western Rome ceased to exist. Odoacer (Odovacar), leader of the Heruli, conquered Western Rome in 476 and removed the last of the Roman emperors and ruled as the king of Italy (See Durant, The Age Of Faith, 42, 43). It took 100 years (376 – 476) to cause the iron tenacity of Rome to break into division. Durant maintains, “the Empire in the West faded, but the states of Modern Europe were born” (The Age Of Faith, 43). Prior to the fall of Rome in 476, there were several different Barbarian tribes vying for power against Rome—more than TEN for sure. The fact that there were more than 10 tribes during the invasions of Rome has often been cited as proof that the partitioning of Rome into 10 divisions has not had a historical fulfillment. T. R. Birks perceptively counters this idea:
The ten horns may not be strictly permanent, but admit of partial change. Some may perhaps fall, or be blended, and then replaced by others. The tenfold character may thus be dominant through the whole, and appear distinctly at the beginning and close of their history, though not strictly maintained every moment. A tenfold division, such as some have looked for, mathematical and unvaried, would frustrate one-half of the prediction; and would deprive the rest of all its freedom and moral grandeur. But now every part is alike accomplished. At the same time, by these partial changes in the list of doomed kingdoms, the reproach of a stern fatalism, which otherwise would cloud the equity of divine Providence, is rolled away (T. R. Birks, The Four Prophetic Empires, and the Kingdom of Messiah, 143, 144, 152).

In history, we find that tribes would come and go. The question then should be raised: Can a tenfold division be found amongst the flow of tribes that would come and go? Yes, there were ten powers that came out of Rome—ten significant powers. Seven of these powers still exist, and three of them disappeared from history.

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

We need not look for Daniel’s prediction of the 10 horns to meet its fulfillment in the future, for Europe took form between the years’ 325 – 529. Daniel’s prophecies move progressively through Church history. If the ten horns existed back in this time frame, it is more likely that the Antichrist too has his beginnings back here. The Rising Of The Little Horn

The English Reformer, John Wycliff (1324 – 1384), known, as “the Morning Star of the Reformation” is very important in Church history. Why? Durant tells us: “All the major elements of the Reformation were in Wycliff” (The Reformation, 37). Durant further explains: “If the Great Revolt (There was a big revolt in England in 1381) had not ended the government’s protection of Wycliff’s efforts, the Reformation might have taken form and root in England 130 years before it broke out in Germany”(The Reformation,



37). The Catholic Church hated this English reformer so much that in the Council of Constance (A.D. 1415), from which Council John Huss was burned, said:
This holy synod declareth, determineth, and giveth sentence, that John Wycliff was a notorious heretic, and that he died obstinate in his heresy; cursing alike him and condemning his memory. This synod also decreeth and ordaineth that his body and bones, if they might be discerned from the bodies of other faithful people, should be taken out of the ground, and thrown away far from the burial of any church (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, 68).

Well did the writers of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs declare, “for though they digged up his body, burnt his bones, and drowned his ashes, yet the Word of God and the truth of his doctrine, with the fruit and success thereof, they could not burn”(Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, 69). Why did the Papacy hate this man with such vehemence? Wycliff believed that Rome’s partitioning had already taken place and that the Papacy was the little horn power.
Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? Hence in the seventh chapter of Daniel Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the fourth kingdom. For it grew from [among ] our powerful ones, more horrible, more cruel, and more greedy, because by reckoning the pagans and our Christians by name, a lesser [greater?] struggle for the temporals is not recorded in any preceding time. Therefore the ten horns are the whole of our temporal rulers, and the horn has arisen from the ten horns, having eyes and a mouth speaking great things against the Lofty One, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking that he is able to change times and laws (Wyclif’s De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, Vol. 3, 267, 268).

Obviously, Wycliff was correct in saying that Rome had divided up into its divisions. Was he right in applying the little horn to the Papacy? There are 10 identifying marks of the little horn power. Dispensationalists claim that there is no power in history that matches these identifying marks. Dispensationalists are absolutely incorrect in teaching that the 10 divisions of Rome are exclusively future, as we have just analyzed, and we are now going to see how incorrect they are in assuming that the little horn power is exclusively future, and we will see that Wycliff was correct. Let us analyze the power that matches these descriptions. (1) Daniel 7:7, 8 Note: The little horn was to arise out of the fourth beast. This means that the little horn was to arise out of Pagan Rome. Has there been a great power, which equaled and surpassed the power of that of Pagan Rome? Yes, A. C. Flick emphasizes:
Out of the ruins of political Rome, arose the great moral Empire in the ‘giant form’ of the Roman Church (The Rise of the Mediaeval Church, 150).

Note: It was the Roman Catholic Church that came out of Rome. Flick further emphasizes:

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One
The Removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330, left the Western Church, practically free from imperial power, to develop its own form of organization. The Bishop of Rome, in the seat of the Caesars, was now the greatest man in the West, and was soon [when the barbarians overran the empire] forced to become the political as well as the spiritual head (The Rise of the Mediaevil Church, 168).

When the Heruli removed the last of the Western Roman Emperors in 476, which power brought order back to the West? Durant emphasizes: “To the Church, more than to any other institution, Europe owed the resurrection of civilization in the West after the barbarian inundation of Italy, Gaul, Britain, and Spain” (The Reformation, 5). Durant elaborates in another book:
In the West, however, the popes exercised a growing leadership even in secular affairs. They were subject in non-religious matters to the Roman state and prefect, and until the seventh century they sought the confirmation of their election from the emperor. But the distance of the Eastern and the weakness of the Western rulers left the popes pre-eminent in Rome; and when, in the face of invasion, both Senate and emperor fled, and civil government collapsed, while the popes stood unawed at their posts, their prestige rapidly rose (Age of Faith, 50).

We agree with the Baptist, Henry H. Halley:
The desire for Worldly Power began to manifest itself in the Church, on a broad scale, in the 4th century, when the Roman Empire ceased its persecutions, and made Christianity its state Religion. The spirit of Imperial Rome passed into the Church. The Church gradually developed itself into the pattern of the Empire it had conquered. The Popes of Rome were the heirs and successors of the Caesars of Rome. The Vatican is where the Palace of the Caesars was. The Popes have claimed all the authority the Caesars claimed, and more (Halley’s Bible Handbook, 731, 732).

After 476 the Popes became the successors of the Caesars in the West—ruling in the very spot where the Caesars and Emperors ruled. The Eastern Roman Emperors in Constantinople with the Eastern Empire came to an end in 1453 after being conquered by the Moslem empire, the Ottoman Turks. After the fall of Constantinople, Roman civilization was known only in the West with the Pope as its head. It is without dispute in history that the Roman Church was, in its very essence, the continuation of the Pagan Roman Empire. (2) Daniel 7:8 Note: The little horn emerged among the 10 horns. Did the Papacy emerge as a prominent power among the 10 horns—after the year 476? Yes! Carl Conrad Eckhardt says:


Under the Roman Empire the Popes had no temporal powers. But when the Roman Empire had disintegrated and its place had been taken by a number of rude, barbarous kingdoms, the Roman Catholic church not only became independant of the states in religious affairs but dominated secular affairs as well (The Papacy and World-Affairs, 1).

Adolf Harnack reveals:
Whatever Roman elements the barbarians and Arians left . . . [came] under the protection of the Bishop of Rome, who was the chief person there after the Emperor’s disappearance . . . .The Roman Church in this way privily pushed itself into the place of the Roman World-Empire, of which it is the actual continuation; the empire has not perished, but has only undergone a transformation . . .That is no mere ‘clever remark,’ but the recognition of the true state of the matter historically, and the most appropriate and fruitful way of describing the character of this Church. It still governs the nations . . . . It is a political creation, and as impossing as a World-Empire, because [it is] the continuation of the Roman Empire. The Pope, who calls himself ‘King’ and ‘Pontifex Maximus,’ is Caesar’s successor (What Is Christianity? 269, 270).

These documents not only answer the fact that the Papacy emerged out of the 10 horns, but also answers the first identifying mark: That the Papacy came out of Rome. (3) Daniel 7:24 Note: The little horn was to be different than the surrounding horns. This point is answered by all the identifying marks that we are analyzing. Its difference is seen in the fact that it was a Christian imperial power. We learn from John Dowling the following:
Soon after Constantine’s professed conversion to Christianity, he undertook to remodel the government of the church, so as to make it conform as much as possible to the government of the state. Hence the origin of the dignities of patriarchs, exarches, archbishops, canons, prebendaries, &c., intended by the Emperor to correspond with the different secular offices and dignities, connected with the civil administration of the empire. Taking these newly constituted dignitaries of the church into his own special favor, he loaded them with wealth and worldly honors, and richly endowed the churches over which they presided, thus fostering in those who professed to be the followers and ministers of HIM who was “meek and lowly in heart,” a spirit of wordly ambition, pride, and avarice (The History Of Romanism: From The Earliest Corruptions Of Christianity To The Present Time, 31).

(4) Daniel 7:20 Note: The little horn’s look was “more stout” than the other horns. Was the Papacy “more stout” than the divided kingdoms? Yes! J. A. Wylie argues that the popes asserted great power over the nations of Europe:

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One
For several centuries together we see the popes reigning over Europe, and demeaning themselves in every way as not only its spiritual, but also its temporal lords. We see them freely distributing immunities, titles, revenues, territories, as if all belonged to them; we see them sustaining themselves arbiters in all disputes, umpires in all quarrels, and judges in all causes; we see them giving provinces and crowns to their favorites, and constituting emperors; we see them imposing oaths of fidelity and vassalage on monarchs; and, in token of the dependence of the one and the supremacy of the other, we see them exacting tribute for their kingdoms in the shape of Peter’s pence; we see them raising wars and crusades, summoning princes and kings into the field, attiring them in their livery, the cross, and holding them but as lieutenants under them. In fine, how often have they deposed monarchs, and laid their kingdoms under interdict? History presents us with a list of not less than sixty-four emperors and kings deposed by the popes (The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects: Being The Evangelical Alliance First Prize Essay On Popery, Book 1, 102).

Durant also demonstrates how the popes were the rulers of European civilization:
Amid all complaints and revolts the Popes continued to assert their absolute sovereignty over the kings of the earth. About 1324, under the patronage of John XXII, Agostino Trionfo wrote a Summa de potestate ecclesiastica in reply to attacks on the Papacy by Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham. ‘The power of the pope,’ said Agostino, ‘is from God, Whose vicegerent he is on earth; even when he is a great sinner he must be obeyed; he may be deposed by a general council of the Church for manifest heresy; but short of this his authority is second only to God’s, and transcends that of all earthly potentates. He may dethrone kings and emperors at will, even over the protests of their people or the electors; he may annul the decrees of secular rulers, and may set aside the constitutions of states. No decree of any prince is valid unless the pope gives it his consent. The pope stands higher than the angels, and may receive equal reverence with the Virgin and the saints.’ Pope John accepted all this as following logically from the generally conceded establishment of the Church by the Son of God, and acted on it with adamantine consistency (The Reformation, 8).

After reading these paragraphs from Wylie and Durant, it is not difficult to understand why Martin Luther—concerning Dan. 11:36—emphasizes:
Here the pope is clearly pictured, who in all his decrees shouts impudently that all the churches and thrones will be judged by him, but he cannot be judged by anyone. And Cap. Solitae: As the sun is superior to the moon, so the pope is superior to the emperor. And wherever authority is, there is power to command, and others are obliged to obey (Sammtilche Schriften, Vol 6, col. 917).

(5) Daniel 7:8, 20, 24: Note: The little horn uprooted three of the horns. Did the Papacy accomplish such a feat? Yes! Let us now prove this through an understanding of history. The first ecumenical council in the Catholic Church took place in 325; it is known



as Nicea. This council was so important in Church history that the writings of the Church fathers are compiled in Volume sets revolving around this title: Ante (before) Nicene Fathers and Post (After) Nicene Fathers. This council is considered the middle wall of all preceding and proceeding dogma for Church doctrine. Constantine the Great became sole emperor in 324 and set out on a journey to make Byzantium the new capital of Rome. We learn that “the New Rome was dedicated as capital of the Eastern Empire on May 11, 330—a day that was thereafter annually celebrated with imposing ceremony,” says Durant (The Age of Faith, 4). During this time frame there was a great debate concerning the Deity of Christ. Athanasius debated that Jesus was consubstantial and coeternal with the Father. Athanasius is recognized as one of the fathers of the doctrine of the trinity—the one who caused it to be a permanent doctrine in Catholicism. Arius taught that Jesus was the Son of God but not equal with the Father. Many bishops in the East sided with Arius; thus, the Catholic Church was a house divided against itself.
It is said that Constantine, prior to a battle, saw a cross in the sky and heard a voice that said, “In this sign, conquer” (See Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, 45). Constantine who was

supposedly converted to Christianity created the council of Nicea in order to keep his newly won empire from crumbling. As time moved forward, this controversy had not ended with the Council of Nicea. As the barbarian hordes began to take shape in 325 and invaded Rome through the years, they were indoctrinated with this controversy. Durant asserts, “Christianity had been first carried to the Teutonic tribes by Roman captives taken in the Gothic invasions of Asia Minor in the third century” (The Age of Faith, 46). We learn that “Arianism, overcome within the Empire, won a peculiar victory among the barbarians” (The Age of Faith, 46). How did Arianism—as a belief—dominate the thinking among the barbarians? It was the Goths (Visigoths and Ostrogoths) who became the champions of Arianism, and the Goths influenced other tribes into this belief. “As other barbarians received their Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries from the Goths, nearly all the invaders of the Empire were Arians, and the new kingdoms established by them in the Balkans, Gaul, Spain, Italy and Africa were officially Arian” (The Age of Faith, 47). Arianism was a prominent force, a force, which undermined the Nicean creed, a fundamental pillar of Catholicism. Arianism, as a whole, was not the only threat to the Papacy. Ulfilas (311 – 81) was ordained bishop in 341 for the Goths, and he developed a Gothic alphabet based on Greek (the Goths at that time had no written language.). With this alphabet, Ulfilas developed a written transcript of the Bible for the Goths. “His Bible was the first literary work in any Teutonic tongue” (The Age of Faith, 46, 47). The result of this was, the Gothic people could study the scriptures and not be swayed by Papal falsehoods. As the Papacy emerged out of Pagan Rome’s fall, she realized that Arianism threatened her very potential for absolute supremacy. Arianism, in its essence, was something that kept Papal power in check. For example: In 476 Rome fell to the Heruli, and their leader, Odoacar, ruled Italy as king. Why is this important? The Heruli were Arian; thus, in 476 Arianism took control of the very spot where the Popes ruled. While the Heruli had control of the West, “Zeno, the Eastern Roman Emperor (474 – 491), grew increasingly fearful of the Arian Ostrogoths, who were encamped in a reserve not far from Constantinople where they were becoming increasingly restless,” says Maxwell (The Message Of Daniel, 145; Also see Age of Faith, 97). This is very significant, because from Zeno’s point of view, the Arian Heruli were already in control
Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

of the West; if the Ostrogoths were to gain control of the East, Arianism would have dominated the whole of the Catholic Church. Colin McEvedy explains the stress of this situation in the following: “Odoacer's success stimulated the mistrust of the Eastern Romans. The government of Constantinople had been having increasing trouble with its Ostrogothic federates, and, as it stood to profit by his success or failure, encouraged Theodoric the Ostrogoth to invade Italy” (The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, 24). The Arians were in a position to rewrite, what we understand today to be, Papal history. If the Ostrogoths would have taken Constantinople, there may never have been the great Papal supremacy. So with this in mind, it becomes clear that this is not some small issue on the pages of history; this is very large. Zeno had to find a way to eliminate this threat. This is why, according to McEvedy, Theodoric was encouraged to fight the Heurli. Maxwell explains how Zeno accomplished the elimination of the Heruli:
In 487 Zeno officially commissioned Theodoric, leader of the Ostrogoths, to march to Italy and depose of the Heruls. Zeno reckoned that in the process he would relieve Constantinople of its ferocious neighbors. Further, whichever tribe won the contest in Italy, he would have one less Arian tribe to contend with. As things turned out, after five years of fighting, the Ostrogoths fulfilled their mission from Zeno and destroyed the Heruls, who disappeared from history. Thus the Catholic emperor Zeno accomplished the elimination of one of the Arian horns (The Message of Daniel, 146; also see Age of Faith, 97, 98).

McEvedy says: “After a hard-fought war (489 - 93) and some judicious treachery, Theodoric made himself master of an enlarged Italian Kingdom” (The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, 24). The Ostrogoths eliminated the Arian Heruli in 493; yet, there was still much Arianism to contend with. Sometime in the year 493 or after, Clovis, the founder of France, was allegedly converted to Nicene Christianity. France, under the leadership of Clovis, became a powerful force for the advancement of Papal power against Arianism. The Arian Visigoths under the leadership of Alaric 2 became powerful, but were defeated by Clovis in 508. The Visigoths soon after converted to Papal orthodoxy. The Ostrogoths on the other hand, who were in Rome, after leaving the East to conquer the Heruli in the West, were not converted; and neither were the Vandals of North Africa converted. Both were serious irritations to the Papacy. When Theodoric, the one who eliminated the Heruli, died in 526, Justinian became the Emperor in the Eastern Empire. Justinian was known as the “Imperial Theologian.” He took Church theology and Roman law very seriously. In 528 Justinian set forth to revise Roman law and combine it with Christian orthodoxy into a new code that was to govern his empire. The first copy of this work was published in 533. Dr. Froom explains what Justinian’s work entailed:
The code groups together in book 1 the various religious laws of emperors since Constantine. In this book, title 1, “Concerning the Most Exalted Trinity and the Catholic Faith, and Providing That No One Shall Dare to Publicly Oppose Them,” begins by defining and establishing orthodoxy, penalizing dissenters, and including Justinian’s correspondence with John and Epiphanius relating to the Nestorians and asserting the pope’s headship. Title 2 is concerned with the property and privileges of churches, title 3 and 4 with the statues of the clergy and the legal functions and jurisdiction of the bishops. Title 5 confirms the


decrees against heresy, which, together with Justinian’s own enactments in the Novellae [this was the name given to Justinian‘s publications after his death], laid the foundation upon which the Inquisition was later built. Titles 6 -13 deal with various religious subjects (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, appendices, 934. Emphasis mine).

Durant says that Justinian’s code became known as “Corpus iuris civilis,” meaning, “Body of Civil Law.” “This code, like the Theodosian [Theodosius 2 was an Emperor prior to Justinian who codified Roman and Church law, but not to the magnitude of Justinian’s codification.], enacted orthodox Christianity into law. It began by declaring for the Trinity, and anathematized Nestorius, Eutyches, and Apollinaris. It acknowledged the ecclesiastical leadership of the Roman Church, and ordered all Christian groups to submit to her authority”(Age of Faith, 112 emphasis mine). During the process of Justinian’s work to establish and unite both Roman and Papal law as a binding code to govern the Christian world, Justinian realized that a united kingdom under the Jurisdiction of the imperial Papal power was not possible as long as the Vandals and Ostrogoths maintained power. Let us ask: Was the Vandal kingdom and Ostrogothic kingdom significant in that they repelled the Catholic imperial design of Justinian? Charles Diehl, in Cambridge Medieval History, reveals how important these Arian powers were:
In spite of every difficulty the imperial diplomacy never lost sight of any event that might further the accomplishment of Justinian’s plans. Occurrences in the Vandal kingdom in Africa and the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy were carefully watched for the profit of the Empire. In Africa, as in Italy, everything was in favor of the imperial restoration. The Roman people, governed by barbarian kings, had kept alive the memory of the Empire, and looked impatiently to Constantinople for a deliverer (The Cambridge Medieval History. 2nd edition: The Rise Of The Saracens And The Foundation Of The Western Empire, Vol. 2, 9).

Justinian, knowing that the Vandals and Ostrogoths were a threat to a unified empire— governed by orthodox Catholicity—launched a holy war against these powers in the very year (533) of his first publication of the code that was to rule Christendom. Justinian was so crafty in diplomatic skills that he was able to deceive the Ostrogoths into a false alliance, while the Vandals were being overthrown (See Age of Faith, 109). (The Ostrogoths were deceived into destroying their Heruli brethren, and now they were deceived in allowing their Vandal brethren to be destroyed; they obviously could not see the results of their reasoning.) We learn that Justinian’s general, Belisarius, with 500 hundred transports and 92 warships made their way to Carthage North Africa to overthrew the Vandal kingdom (See Age of Faith, 109). Diehl tells us:
On 22 June 533 Belisarius embarked for the West. Ten thousand infantry, and from five to six thousand cavalry were shipped in five hundred transport-ships, manned by twenty thousand sailors. A fleet of war-ships (dromons) manned by two thousand oarsmen convoyed the expedition. The Vandals could offer little resistance to these forces (The Cambridge Medieval History. 2nd edition: The Rise Of The Saracens And The Foundation Of The Western Empire. Vol. 2, 12).

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

What was the result of Justinian and Belisarius’s enterprise? Charles Diehl says, “[In 534] In a few months, contrary to all expectations, a few cavalry regiments had destroyed Gaiseric’s kingdom” (The Cambridge Medieval History. 2nd edition: The Rise Of The Saracens And The Foundation Of The Western Empire Vol. 2, 13. emphasis mine). Maxwell, quoting the Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, explains, “After the crucial battle of Tricamarum the Vandals in 534 ‘disappeared like a mist” (The Message Of Daniel, 146. citing: C. W. Previte-Orton, Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, 2 vols. (Cambridge University Press, 1953), 1: 189). This was the second Arian horn that the Papacy removed. The third Arian horn that was removed was the Ostrogoths. Froom gives a year-by-year outline of the destruction of the Arian Vandals and Ostrogoths as follows: 533 –Justinian’s general, Belisarius, embarks for Africa. 534 –Vandal kingdom destroyed. 535 –Belisarius lands in Sicily, beginning the Ostrogothic war. 536 –Belisarius garrisons Rome 537 –(March) –Ostrogothic king Witiges, with 150, 000 Goths, vainly seeks to retake Rome in a one-year siege. 538 –(March) –Another Roman army landing in Italy, Witiges in despair abandons the siege of Rome, falling back to Ravenna 553 –Defeat of Teias (Theia) and end of the Ostrogothic war (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2 Appendices, 935). The Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths were the most prominent and pervasive of the followers of Arius’s doctrine. It is a fact of history that these three powers stood in the way of the Papal supremacy. It was only after these powers were removed that Rome was liberated to expand into the huge world power that she became. Therefore, we can say that the little horn is the Papacy and the three horns that were uprooted were these three powers. Another interesting point to be noted is the fact that Daniel 7:8 says that the little horn uprooted three of the FIRST horns in relation to the other horns. The Aramaic for this word is qadmay (kad-mah-ee), meaning, “former,” “previous,” “first.” This word indicates that the three horns, which were uprooted, belong to the time frame when Rome was being divided (376 – 476). Said another way, this word indicates that the three horns belong to the divided kingdoms in their infancy; meaning, when Europe was first being formed. The Papacy matches this prophecy most accurately, for the Papacy was the only power which came up in Europe’s infancy and removed three powers which—if they had been more united—could have totally thwarted the great power which the Papacy enjoyed after their destruction. After analyzing this history, it is not hard to understand why the reformer, Heinrich Bullinger (1504 – 1575) identified the Papacy as the little horn:
By the little horn many understand the kingdom of Mohammed, of the Saracens and of the Turks . . . .But when the apostolic prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2 is more carefully examined, it seems that this prophecy of Daniel and that prophecy of the apostle belong more rightly to the kingdom of the Roman pope, which kingdom has arisen from small beginnings and has increased to an immense size. (Daniel Sapientissimus Dei Propheta, chap. 7, fol. 78v.).



(6,7) Daniel 7:8,25 Note: The little horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke great things—great words against the Most High. As we have noted, horns are kingdoms; but the little horn has eyes like the eyes of a man. This indicates that a human leadership image is very important to the understanding of this symbol. Daniel 7:8 is a scripture that must be read in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:1 – 4, which describes the coming of the “man of sin.” The leadership position that matches this prophecy is the position of Popery. The very position of Popery is the Pontifex Maximus, borrowed from pagan Rome, and made to represent political power as well as religious power. (To see a basic study on the meaning of this word, click on: Pontifex Maximus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). According to Catholic sources, the position of “Pontifex Maximus” or “Supreme Pontiff” of Rome has entitled the Pope to act as God on earth. The following citation is an example of this fact:
Christ entrusted His office to the chief pontiff; . . . but all power in heaven and in earth has been given to Christ; . . . therefore the chief pontiff, who is His vicar, will have this power. (Corpus Juris Canonici (1555 – 56ed.), Vol. 3, Extravagantes Communes, Book 1, chap. 1, col. 29, translated from a gloss on the words Porro Subesse Romano Pontiff).

Apparently the position of Popery is not only revealed in its image and “Pontifex Maximus” title, but is revealed in the dogma that surrounds the pomp of this position. According to Daniel, the little horn would “speak great things,” and this…in conjunction with a human demigod position. Michael Scheifler on his website gives links to important Catholic writings that demonstrate how the Pope fulfills the position of the “man of sin.” An example of this is: [Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca., Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica. “Papa” art. 2. (“Handy Library”), Vol. 5, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition, columns 1823 – 1824.] We are now going to look at a few of Scheifler’s findings in columns’ 1823 – 1824 (If the reader wishes to see the complete list and more, click on the above “Prompta Bibliotheca”). PAPA - POPE ARTICULUS II - ARTICLE 2 1. Papa tantae est dignitatis et cesitudinis, ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius.

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God.

3. Papa idem est ac Pater patrum. The Pope is the Father of fathers.

4. Et hoc nomine uti potest solus Summus Pontifex. Therefore he alone holds the office of Supreme Pontiff.

7. Merito solus Papa appellatur nomine Sanctissimi, et quare? The Pope alone merits to be called Most Holy, why? From column 1826: 7. Et merito solus Papa appellatur nomine Sanctissimi, quia solus ipse est vicarius Christi, qui est fons et origo, atque plenitudo omnis sanctitatis. The pope alone is deservedly called by the name most holy because he alone is the vicar of Christ, who is the fountain, source and fullness of all holiness.

11. Item episcopus seu dioecesanus totius orbis. He is a bishop with jurisdiction over the whole globe.

12. Item divinus monarcha, ac imperator supremus et rex regum. He is likewise the divine monarch, and supreme emperor, and king of kings.

13. Hinc Papa triplici corona coronatur tanquam rec coeli, terre et infernoram. Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of hell.



14. Imo Romani Pontificis excellentia, et potestas, nedum est circa coelestia, terrestria et infernalia, set etiam super angelos, quorum ipse major est. Moreover the superiority and the power of the Roman Pontiff by no means pertains only to heavenly things, but also earthly things, and to things under the earth, and even over the angels, whom he is greater than.

15. Ita ut si foret possibile, quod angeli errarent in fide, vel contra fidem sentirent, per Papam judicari et excommunicari possent. So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the Pope.

16. Papa tantae est dignitatis ut faciat unum, et idem tribunal cum Christo. For he is of so great dignity and power that he forms one and the same tribunal with Christ.

17. Adeo ut quidquid facit Papa, ab ore Dei videatur procedere. So that whatever the Pope does, seems to proceed from the mouth of God.

18. Deveniendo ad Papae auctoritatem, Papa est quasi Deus in terra unicaus Christifidelium princeps, regum omnium rex maximus, plenitudinem potestatis continens, cui terreni simul, ac coelestis imperii gubernacula ab omnipotenti Deo credita sunt. As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms.

Has the Papacy spoke great things against the Most High as Daniel warned? Yes! The Papacy claims that the Pope holds the very positions of Christ; this is blasphemy, for no man can hold this position. As Christ is the only one who was worthy to open the seven seals in Revelation 5, 6, he is the only one who can be our High Priest before the Father of Glory. The Papacy claims to be the continuation of the Melchizedek priesthood with the pope as Christendom’s High Priest (see chap. 4). They indeed have placed themselves anti (in place of and therefore against) Christ. Lucius Ferraris is not the only one who has emphasized Papal blasphemies, for the Jesuit, Bellarmine, maintained:

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One
All names which in the scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that he is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope. (Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de Controversiis, Tom. 2, “Controversia Prima,” Book 2 (“De Conciliorum Auctoritate” [On the Authority of Councils]), chap. 17 (1628 ed., Vol. 1, 266)

Does the Church of Rome really believe that the Pope has the same titles as Christ, or did the Jesuit, Bellarmine, just make this up? This Italian Jesuit did not make this up, for he was only explaining an established idea in Papal dogma. This is proven in the Fifth Lateran Council when Christopher Marcellus told the Pope, and the Pope did not argue with him the following:
For thou art the sheperd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman; finally, thou art another God on earth (Christopher Marcellus’ Oration in the Fifth Lateran Council, 4th session, in J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum . . .Collectio, Vol. 32, col. 761).

The Reformer, William Tyndale (1484 – 1536), spent his whole career going through his front door only to exit out the back door when Papal soldiers came to arrest him on charges of Heresy. He spent most of his time translating the Greek into English; he was the first to accomplish an English translation from the Greek. In fact, it was largely Tyndale’s work that laid the foundation for the 1611 King James Bible. It was Tyndale who said, “ ‘I defy the Pope, and all his laws;’ and added, that if God spared him life, ere many years he would cause a boy that driveth the plough, to know more of the scriptures than he (the Pope) did” (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, 139. Emphasis mine). In 1536 he was burned at the stake. Why was he burned? He grew tired of hearing blasphemous orations like that of Christopher Marcellus. Tyndale says:
Now though the bishop of Rome and his sects give Christ these names, yet in that they rob him of the effect, and take the significations of his names unto themselves, and make of him but an hypocrite, as they themselves be, they be the right antichrists, and deny both the father and Son ([Works], Vol. 2. Expositions and Notes: The Exposition of the First Epistle of St. John, 183).

Tyndale, like the other Reformers, witnessed the fulfillment of the “man of sin” in the Papal system. He declared:
And [they] have set up that great idol, the whore of Babylon, antichrist of Rome, whom they call the Pope; and have conspired against all commonwealths, and have made them a several kingdom, wherein it is lawful, unpunished, to work all abomination ([Works] Vol. 1, Doctrinal Treatises: The Obedience of a Christian Man, 191).

Is it astonishing that Christopher Marcellus said the Pope is another God on earth? No! Christopher was only stating—for example—what Pope Gregory IX said about his position as Pope:
For not man, but God seperates those whom the Roman Pontiff (who exercises the functions, not of mere man, but of the true God), having weighed the necessity or benefit of the churches, dissolves, not by human but rather by divine


authority (“The Decretals of Gregory IX,” Book 1, title 7, chap. 3, in Corpus Juris Canonici (1555 - 56 ed.), Vol. 2, col. 203).

Connected to the title of “Pontifex Maximus,” the popes claim to be the Head of the Chrurch (see Chap. 4 on the little horn). Well did John Huss emphasize: “Not the Pope, but Christ only, is the head” (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, 95). Huss argues excellently against the Papal assumption of Peter’s supremecy:
Peter never was, neither is the head of the holy universal Church. All men do agree in this point, that Peter had received of the Rock of the Church (which is Christ), humility, poverty, steadfastness of faith, and consequently blessedness. Not as though the meaning of our Lord Jesus Christ was, when He said, “Upon this Rock I will build My Church,” that He would build every militant Church upon the person of Peter, for Christ should build His church upon the Rock which is Christ Himself, from whence Peter received his steadfastness of faith, forasmuch as Jesus Christ is the only head and foundation of every church, and not Peter (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, 116, 117).

Huss, like the other Reformers, understood that the Popes are from the order of Pontiffs, a pagan succession, and Peter had nothing to do with Paganism, and neither was Peter a Pontiff. The pontifical priesthood of the Papacy is paganism, and the “Supreme Pontiff” is the man of sin of which Peter could never have been a prototype. What did the Reformers think of the Pope wearing a triple crown, claiming to be king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions—as Lucius Ferraris explains? Thomas Cranmer (1489 – 1556), archbishop of Canterbury, in 1535 renounced his allegiance to the Papacy and became another Reformer who sided with the Lutheran controversy. In 1553 he was imprisoned with Latimer and Ridley and—like them—was burned at the stake a few years latter. Why was Cranmer burned? He grew tired of the Pope’s triple crown and realized that the Pope was indeed the man of lawlessness. He says:

After all these sprung up the pope, that triple-crowned monster, and great antichrist, which took upon him authority, not only over the clergy, but also climbed above kings and emperors, deposing them at his pleasure, and settled himself in the temple of God, that is, in the consciences of men, extolling himself above God, dispensing with good laws, and giving men leave to break them, and

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One
to regard more his decrees than the everlasting commandments of God (The Works of Thomas Cranmer: Miscellaneous Writings and Letters, Vol. 2, 15).

(For a good study on the Pope’s triple crown, see Scheifler’s Three Horns Plucked Up = Triple Crown of Papacy) Obviously, Cranmer matched the Pope with the description of the little horn in Daniel 7:25. This image of the Pope along with his actions proved to the Reformers that the Papacy was and is very much the Antichrist. These Reformers got fed up with the abuses of the Catholic Church along with all of the feigned titles that popes pretend to have. Take for example “Vicar.” This is used constantly in Papal documents, such as the following:
The Pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land . . . . He is the vicegerent of Christ, who is not only a Priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords (La Civilta Cattolica, March 18, 1871, quoted in Leonard Woolsey Bacon, An Inside View of the Vatican Council (American Tract Society ed.), 229).

Wylie demonstrates the Papal meaning of this term as follows:
CHRIST IS THE VICAR OF GOD, AND, AS SUCH, POSSESSES HIS POWER; BUT THE POPE IS THE VICAR OF CHRIST; THEREFORE THE POPE IS GOD’S VICAR AND POSSESSES HIS POWER…To the pope all spiritual power has been delegated, as head of the Church, and God’s vicegerent on earth; and all temporal power also, for the good of the Church. Such is the theory of the popedom (The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects, Book 1, 97).

Interestingly, the word “Vicar” actually means “in place of” or “instead of.” This is literally the definition of the Greek word “Anti.” The Latin word, “Vicar,” translated back to Greek is, “Anti.” Papal documents, literally, tell us that the Pope is saying, “I am Anti Christ.” People in today’s churches have seem to forgotten that the word “anti” 2,000 years ago in Greek did not, in its primary meaning, have the meaning of “against.” The Reformers grew tired of hearing the popes say, “I am ‘anti’ or ‘in place of Christ.’” Take the Reformer, John Bradford (1510 – 1555), for example. This man was ordained by Ridley, and he also was a friend of Latimer. Bradford, like Ridley and Latimer, was burned at the stake. Why? Let him tell us:
Wherefore I now am condemned and shall be burned as an heretic. For, because I will not grant the antichrist of Rome to be Christ’s vicar-general and supreme head of his church here and every where upon earth, by God’s ordinance (Edited for the Parker Society by Aubrey Townsend. The Writings of John Bradford: Sermons, Meditations, Examinations, Vol. 1, 441, 442).

Ultimately, Bradford was killed because he disagreed with the following presumption: “We,” says Pope Boniface VIII., “declare, say, define, and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation, that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff” (Wylie, The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects, Book 1, 100). Bradford refused to be subject to the Papal Antichrist.



(8) Daniel 7:25: Note: The little horn was to wear out (Aramaic: Bela “to wear away” “harass constantly”) the saints of the Most High. Did the Papacy do this? Yes! The Papacy was only putting into practice the policies of pagan Rome:
Now let us comprehend the persecutions raised by the Romans against the Christians in the primitive age of the Church, during the space of three hundred years. Wherein marvelous it is to see and read the numbers incredible of Christians innocents that were tormented and slain. Whose kinds of punishments, although they were diverse, yet the manner of constancy in all these martyrs was one. . . . . ‘There is no day in the whole year unto which the number of five thousand martyrs cannot be ascribed, except only the first day of January. The tyrants and organs of Satan were not contended with death only, to bereave the life from the body. The kinds of death were diverse, and no less horrible than diverse. Whatsoever the cruelness of man’s invention could devise for the punishment of man’s body, was practiced against the Christians –stripes and scourgings, drawings, tearings, stonings, plates of iron laid unto them burning hot, deep dungeons, racks, strangling in prisons, the teeth of wild beasts, gridirons, gibbets and gallows, tossing upon the horns of bulls. Moreover, when they were thus killed, their bodies were laid in heaps, and dogs there left to keep them, that no man might come to bury them, neither would any prayer obtain them to be interred (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, 11, 12, 18).

Pagan Rome was very cruel to the Christians; but the Papacy was far worse:
Compared with the butcheries of holy men and women by the papal anti-Christ, the persecutions of the pagan emperors of the first three centuries sink into comparative insignificance. For not a tithe of the blood of martyrs was shed by Paganism, that has been poured forth by Popery; and the persecutors of Pagan Rome, never dreamed of the thousand ingenious contrivances of torture, which, the malignity of popish inquisitors succeeded in inventing . . . From the birth of Popery in 606, to the present time, it is estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than Fifty Millions of the human family, have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by popish persecutors, an average of more than forty thousand religious murders for every year of the existence of Popery (John Dowling, The History Of Romanism, 541).

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One The Papacy persecuted those who were unwilling to agree with her dogma. We have already seen this fact in analyzing how the Papacy sought to wipe out Arianism. The Goths —for example—learned to read and write based on Ulfilas’ translation of the Bible into a language that became the basis of their education; meaning, the Bible was the basis of Gothic education. The Papacy hated this! The Papacy has always despised the word of God; they have always sought to destroy it. The Goths, the Waldenses, Tyndale, and others have had to face sure death from Papal power because of their love of the scriptures. If the Papacy could have her way in America, no Protestant would be able to study the word of God. Dowling is absolutely right where he says:
During these dark ages, the scriptures were almost entirely unknown, not only among the laity, but even among the great majority of the clergy. Those of the priests who had some acquaintance with the sacred books labored hard to conceal from the eyes of the people a volume which so plainly condemned their vicious lives and their anti-scriptural doctrines and ceremonies. This, it is well known, has ever been the policy of popish priests, and down to the present day in countries where Popery generally prevails, multitudes of otherwise well educated people are ignorant even of the existence of the Bible (History Of Romanism, 224. Emphasis mine).

There were many people throughout the reign of the Papacy who experienced persecution and death. Martin Luther says:
The second Babylon is similar to the first, and what the mother has done, that is also practiced by the daughter. The first Babylon defended her faith by fire and burnt the ancestors of Christ. See Genesis 11: 9. This Babylon in Rome burns the children of Christ. One Babylon is as pious as the other (Luther’s sammtliche

Werke, Vol. 24, 140). W. E. Lecky tells us:
That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competant knowledge of history. The memorials, indeed, of many of her persecutions are now so scanty that it is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no powers of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings (History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, Vol. 2, 32).



T. R. Birks emphasizes:
Under these bloody maxims [previously mentioned] those persecutions were carried on, from the eleventh and twelfth centuries almost to the present day, which stand out on the page of history. After the signal of open martyrdom had been given in the canons of Orleans, there followed the extirpation of the Albigenses, under the form of a crusade, the establishment of the inquisition, the cruel attempts to extinguish the Waldenses, the martyrdoms of the Lollards, the cruel wars to exterminate the Bohemians, the burning of Huss and Jerome, and multitudes of other confessors, before the Reformation; and afterwards, the ferocious cruelties practiced in the Netherlands, the martyrdoms of queen Mary’s reign, the extinction, by fire and sword, of the reformation in Spain and Italy, by fraud and open persecution in Poland, the massacre of Bartholomew, the persecution of the Huguenots by the League, . . . and all the cruelties and perjuries connected with the revocation of the edict of Nantz [Nantes]. These are the more open and conspicuous facts which explain the prophecy, beside the slow and secret murders of the holy tribunal of the inquisition (The Four Prophetic Empires, and the Kingdom of Messiah, 248, 249).

Concerning the Massacre of St. Bartholomew (1570), Wylie emphasizes that it was “the greatest of the crimes of Rome—perhaps the most fearful monument of human wickedness which the history of the world contains.” Wylie further says, “Seventy thousand corpses covered the soil of France as a result of that Massacre” (The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects, Book 2, 387, 388). Many French Huguenots were murdered simply because they wanted freedom to practice the Protestant religion. In 1598 King Henry IV issued the Edict of Nantes, which allowed the Huguenots to practice their religion freely in France. However, in 1685, under the influence of the Catholic Church and the Jesuits, Louis XIV issued the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. What were the effects of the Revocation? Samuel Smiles tells us:
The Huguenots were forbidden, under the penalty of death, to worship publicly after their own religious forms. They were also forbidden, under the penalty of being sent to the galleys for life, to worship privately in their own homes. If they were overheard singing their favourite psalms, they were liable to fine, imprisonment, or the galleys. They were compelled to hang out flags from their houses on the days of Catholic processions; but they were forbidden, under a heavy penalty, to look out their windows when the Corpus Domini was borne along the Streets. The Huguenots were rigidly forbidden to instruct their children in their own faith. They were commanded to send them to the priest to be baptized and brought up in the Roman Catholic Faith, under the penalty of five hundred livres fine in each case. The boys were educated in Jesuit schools, the girls in nunneries, the parents being compelled to pay the required expenses; and where the parents were too poor to pay, the children were at once transferred to the general hospitals. A decree of the king, published in December, 1685, ordered that every child of five years and upwards was to be taken possession of by the authorities, and removed from its Protestant parents. This decree often proved a sentence of death, not only to the child, but to its

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

The whole of the Protestant temples throughout France were subject to demolition. The expelled pastors were compelled to evacuate the country within fifteen days. If, in the meantime, they were found performing their functions, they were liable to be sent to the galleys for life. If they undertook to mary Protestants, the marriages were declared illegal, and the children bastards. If, after the expiry of the fifteen days, they were found lingering in France, the pastors were then liable to the penalty of death (The Huguenots In France, 13, 14)

The preceding citation from Samuel Smiles is nowhere near complete. For several pages, Smiles lists many infractions on the Huguenots. When one reads this work of Smiles, he will come away realizing that the Papacy is the most despicable organization that has ever been in existence. If any Protestant today believes that union with Rome is a good cause, we direct that person to escape their present state of mental lethargy, and study history with far more resolution to know the truth; for the truth will set one free of this Antichrist of the apocalypse. We completely agree with the Dispensationalist, Tim Lahaye, where he says:
Protestant ecumenicists should keep in mind that Rome has a long history of persecuting Christians. Verse 6 says that the woman (of Revelation 17: Babylon) is “drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” Whenever in control of a country, Rome has not hesitated to put to death all who oppose her. Rome’s frantic opposition to the Reformation (caused by her pagan indulgences and corruption of the true faith) is a good example (Revelation: Illustrated And Made Plain, 234. Emphasis mine).

[This is an example of the kind of confusion that I have heard my whole life. Dispensationalists make statements like this, but yet, they disqualify the Papacy as being the Antichrist in favor of prophetic theology from the Jesuits and the Council of Trent.] On the point that “Protestant ecumenists should keep in mind” Rome’s history of killing Christians, Lahaye is absolutely right. Why? Wylie shows that right before the St. Bartholomew Massacre, the following took place:
The chiefs of the Protestant party were invited to Court, caressed, and loaded with honors. The Protestants generally seemed to be taken into special favour, and now shared the same privileges with the Catholics. So bright was the deceitful gleam that heralded the dismal storm (The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects, Book 2, p. 387, 388).

Why did the Papacy betray this ecumenism in France? Wylie says, “ It is as undeniable as the sun at noon-day, that the Church holds it as a tenet of her faith, that it is unlawful to keep faith with heretics, when the good of the Church requires that it should be violated”
(The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects, Book 2, 383).



Note: The little horn would think (Aramaic. Cebar: “intend” “think”) to change times and laws. How did the Papacy intend (meaning: from God’s point of view, they did not change anything) to change God’s time and laws? Lucius Ferraris says:
30. The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws. The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing his sheep (Prompta Bibliotheca, Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica. “Papa” art. 2, Vol. 5, columns 1823 – 1824).

Because the Pope thinks that he acts in the place (anti) of Christ, he can change the laws of Christ. This is impudence at work, to think that God’s law can be changed. This is why Daniel says they THINK they have done it, but they have not. As was shown, the Reformer, Thomas Cranmer, grew tired of the Pope’s triple crown with all other blasphemous attributes described in his quote. Cranmer also grew tired of the presumption of Popery as in statements like that of Lucius Ferraris above. Cranmer says:
But now Antichrist of Rome, contrary to this decree, hath extolled himself above his fellow-bishops, as God’s vicar, yea, rather as God himself; and taketh upon him authority over kings and emperors, and sitteth in the temple of God, that is, in the consciences of men, and causeth his decrees to be more regarded than God’s laws: yea, and for money he dispenseth with God’s laws, and all other, giving men licence to break them (The Works of Thomas Cranmer: Miscellaneous Writings and Letters, Vol. 2, 39).

Jehovah’s Law I Thou shalt have no other gods before me. II Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children

unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. III Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. IV Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it V Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. VI Thou shalt not kill. VII Thou shalt not commit adultery. VIII Thou shalt not steal. IX Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. X Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s. (Exodus 20: 3 -17) Changed by man I I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before me. II Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

III Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day. IV Honor thy father and thy mother.

V Thou shalt not kill.

VI Thou shalt not commit adultery. VII Thou shalt not steal. VIII Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. IX Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife. X Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods. (PETER GEIERMANN, The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine [1946 ed.], pp. 37, 38 )



Exodus 31:18 tells us that the law was written on stone with the God’s own finger. This is remarkable. Why? Out of the whole of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, God has used men to write down His will. This is the one part of the Bible that God Himself wrote. Stated another way, out of the whole Bible God saw it fit to write the 10 commandments Himself. For God to personally write the 10 commandments means that these commandments must be very important. The Roman Catholic Church has literally defaced the Law into a code homogeneous with their selfish ambitions. They took the first commandment and added the word “strange” to gods. They changed the first commandment as to say that it is ok to worship other gods as long as they are (meaning gods that Papal Rome forbids) not strange. They took the second commandment and completely did away with it. They did this, because they worship saints, relics, and images of pagan gods, which they simply renamed into the apostles. As is seen in Peter Geierman’s Catechism, the removal of the second commandment makes the other commandments go up a number. The Sabbath commandment becomes the third commandment. The Papacy took the tenth commandment and divided it into two commandments to make up for the slack in the law, and then they deleted words in this commandment. The Papacy also took God’s sign of creation, the Sabbath, and attempted to change it into Sunday as is stated in the following documents:
Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionist agree with her; -she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority (Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, 174) Q. Which is the Sabbath Day? A. Saturday is the Sabbath Day. Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday (Peter Geiermann, The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, 50). You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify (James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 72, 73).

What the Papacy has thought to do is add, subtract from, change, and rearranged the Law of God. The problem with this mentality is that it overlooks clear scriptures such as James 2:10 which states, “If you break one of the Commandments, you break them all.” James is only speaking in accordance with Jesus in Matthew 5:17 – 19. Jesus says in verse 18 that not an “iota” would pass away in the Law. In verse 19 he says, “Whosoever breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same is the least in the kingdom of heaven.” The Papacy, by adding, subtracting, changing, and rearranging, has broken the whole of the law. This is why the Pope is clearly the “man of lawlessness.” No wonder Cranmer identified the Papacy as doing the very thing which

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

Jesus says in Matthew 5:19, not to do: “ . . . . and causeth his decrees to be more regarded than God’s laws: yea, and for money he dispenseth with God’s laws, and all other, giving men licence to break them”(The Works of Thomas Cranmer: Miscellaneous Writings and Letters, Vol. 2, 39). No wonder William Tyndale says:
The bishop of Rome made a law of his own, to rule his church by, and put Christ’s out of the way. All the bishops swear unto the bishop of Rome, and all curates unto the bishops; but all forswear Christ and his doctrine (The Exposition of the First Epistle of St. John in Works: Expositions and Notes, Vol. 2, 179, 180).

(10) Daniel 7:25 Note: The little horn was to wear out the saints for 1,260 prophetic days. Does the Papacy match this description? Futurist Single Man Antichrist, Repudiated! Modern dispensational futurists try to explain the time, times, and half a time of Daniel 7 and Revelation 12 as being literal time. This is the case also with the 42 months of Revelation 13. To the Reformers, this was illogical. For them, it was ridiculous to apply literal time to prophecy, which was—in its integrity—symbolic. If the beasts, heads, horns, waters, and winds, are symbolic, it is inconsistent to apply a literal interpretation to the time that is intermingled with apparent symbolism. The Reformers, seeing the apparent symbolism, applied the “day for a year” principle to the times of Daniel and Revelation. To them, Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 laid the foundation for interpreting the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 as being weeks of years; thus, it followed from an established foundation in the scripture to interpret the 1,260 days as years. The dispensationalist Clarence Larkin, in his book on Daniel, uses Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 to justify making the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 weeks of years (See The Book Of Daniel, 182). Obviously, dispensationalists are not ignorant that such a principle as the “day for a year” exists in the scriptures. Larkin further proves that he understands its existence in another book where he expounds on the Church of Smyrna:
They were told that the “author” of their suffering would be the Devil, and its duration would be ten days,” which was doubtless a prophetic reference to the “Ten Great Persecutions” under the Roman Emperors, beginning with Nero, A.D. 64, and ending with Diocletian in A. D. 310. . . Or it may refer to the 10 years of the last and fiercest persecution under Diocletian (The Book Of Revelation, 21).

Tim Lahaye acknowledges that the ten days of persecution in Smyrna could refer to ten years where he says, “Some Bible teachers suggest it refers to the last ten years of the age, A.D. 303 – 312, during which the Church suffered intense persecution under Diocletian” (Revelation: Illustrated And Made Plain, 34). If dispensationalists can indeed apply the “day for a year” principle to the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 and the ten days of Smyrna, why can’t they apply this Biblical principle—which they acknowledge—to the 1,260 days of the Antichrist’s reign? The reason that they cannot be consistent is because they envision the Antichrist to be only one man who is to come at a specific time; and



therefore, the time must harmonize with the life of a man and only one man. This interpretation cannot be harmonized with the whole of the Bible. We as historicists acknowledge that prophecy does indicate that there is a man at the top of the system of Antichrist (see 2 Thes. 2:4); But that the Antichrist constitutes only one man for all time, we completely disagree! Dispensationalists run into serious interpretational confusion, because they miss the 5-fold elaborative aspect of identifiable symbolism pertaining to the hierarchy of Antichrist and what this hierarchy is made to represent: (1) The Sea Beast of Revelation 13: Beasts do not refer to one man only. Daniel 7:23 tells us that beats are kingdoms. Beasts refer to a hierarchical structure of “King” over “Kingdom.” (2) The Little Horn of Daniel 7:8: Horns, like beasts, refer to a hierarchical structure of “King” over “Kingdom.” (3) The Man of Lawlessness of 2 Thessalonians 2:4: This text focuses on the actual position of the “King” over his “Kingdom.” (4) The Great Falling away of 2 Thessalonians 2:3: The Man of Lawlessness comes by means of a great “falling away” (Apostasy) in the Church; therefore, he comes over a period of time in a progressive and destructive manifestation. (5) The place where the Antichrist proceeds from in 1 John 2:18, 19: Like 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4, we find that the Antichrist would come from the Church which coincides with a falling away in the Church, for 2 Thessalonians indicates that the Man of Lawlessness comes from the falling away. The little horn of Daniel 7:8 is viewed as a single man in dispensationalism. One of the justifications for this interpretation is seen in Daniel 8:21, where the first horn of Greece is said to be the first king. But, as we are going to see—comparing scripture with scripture—this is only half of the interpretation. The little horn with the eyes of a man represents both the “man of lawlessness,” which is an established seat of kingship, and the kingdom that he governs. Dispensationalists acknowledge the “Little Horn” of Daniel 7 and the “Sea Beast” of Revelation 13 to be the same power, the Antichrist (See Larkin, The Book Of Revelation, 194). We are in agreement! However, to teach that the “Seven Headed and Ten Horned” Beast of Revelation 13 is only one man identical to the actual man of lawlessness—and only him in 2 Thessalonians 2:4—is ridiculous. Daniel 7:23 teaches that Beasts represent kingdoms. If the sea Beast of Revelation 13 is the Antichrist, according to dispensationalism, then the Antichrist is much more than just one man; it is a kingdom with a king. The Antichrist is the Roman Papacy as a whole, which in essence, is the Roman Empire continued in Christian guise. The head of Papal Rome is the Pope, the Man of Lawlessness. So Antichrist is a religious kingdom with a religious king, and the religious king is a “seat of power” that continues through many men. We will prove this by the following explanation: Daniel 8:23 teaches that the four horns of Greece represent four kingdoms. Horns primarily represent kingdoms. Dispensationalists use scriptures such as Daniel 7:24 to

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

prove that horns represent individual men where it states that the “ten horns” are “ten kings” in a singular way. But this interpretation does not compare scripture with scripture (Isaiah 28:9, 10, 13), because Daniel 7:17 says that the four Beasts are “four kings” in a singular way, whereas verse 23 identifies them as kingdoms. It is more likely that the words “Kings” and “Kingdoms” are both used for “Beasts” and “Horns” to represent the hierarchical structure of these kingdoms, meaning, that both “Beasts” and “Horns” are identified as “Kingdoms” with a “King” over them. “Beasts” and “Horns” are seen as a unified structure of both “King” and “Kingdom.” This is Biblically factual, for in Daniel 2:38, Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar, “Thou art this head of Gold.” After Daniel told the King of Babylon, “thou art this head of gold,” Daniel then followed up in verses’ 39, 40 saying that the other parts of the image are kingdoms. Did Daniel make the head of gold Nebuchadnezzar only, and then make the following metals kingdoms? Did Daniel say that the head of gold is only one man, and then the rest of the image are kingdoms? No! Daniel understood hierarchy! He understood that the head of gold was the kingdom of Babylon; but that, Babylon as a kingdom was represented and was a politically maintained structure through the King. If we apply dispensational reasoning to Babylon, we would have to say that after Nebuchadnezzar died, the head of gold ceased to exist. But this is not the case, for Babylon—as the head of gold—continued until its fall in 538. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the terminology “King,” as it properly belongs to the “Kingdom” of its possession, refers not to only one man at one time, but refers to an established seat of authority. When we compare the five-fold illustration of the identification of Antichrist, we come up with the following conclusion: The little horn with the eyes of a man represents the Pope King (Pontifex Maximus: Caesar’s successor) over the Papacy in its beginning stages. It represents the king with the kingdom; The Sea Beast of Revelation 13 represents the Roman, Papal Kingdom in its greater stage of development under Popery. This obviously focuses more on the kingdom as a system; The “Man of Lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 focuses on the seat of kingship—continued through the popes; 1 John 2:18, 19 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3 teach that this system—with its headship through the Pope—was to be manifested through the Church after a great falling away, an apostasy that was to gradually build into Antichrist. Concerning 2 Thessalonians 2:3 – 11 and 1 Timothy 4:1 – 4, we agree with Dowling:
How accurate is this inspired portrait of the Great Apostasy of Rome, although penned five or six centuries before its complete development—aside from the accurate symbolical descriptions of the same power in the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations, these two passages alone constitute a complete prophetical picture of the Papal anti-Christ, in which every feature, every lineament is drawn to the very life.

Very perceptively, Dowling argues:
It can scarcely be questioned, that the hindrance or obstacle, referred to in these words (2 Thes. 2: 7), was the heathen or pagan Roman government, which acted as a restraint upon the pride and domination of the clergy, through whom the man of sin ultimately arrived at his power and authority, as will afterwards appear


(The History Of Romanism: From The Earliest Corruptions Of Christianity To The Present Time, 28).

We must conclude that the Antichrist is a religious Kingdom with a religious seat of authority—Popery. Once we understand the fact that Antichrist cannot be limited to the life of one man at only one point of time, we can then proceed to remove inconsistencies such as applying literal time to symbolic prophecies. We need not apply the “day for a year” principle to the 70 weeks of Daniel 9, and the 10 days of Smyrna, then stop at these prophecies to apply literal time to the 1,260 days. Now we must ask the question: Can the Papacy be placed in a period of 1,260 years? Froom points out:
True, the Protestant Historicists differed considerably as to when to begin and when to end the 1260-day period of Antichrist, but they were all united in the conviction that a period of 1260 years had been allotted to him, and that it was drawing toward its close. The precise location of the period could scarcely be determined with accuracy until the closing events took place. This is one of the clear characteristics of prophecy—that history is the true and final interpreter of prophecy (Prophetic faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 794, 795).


It is a fact of history that France enhanced the power of the Papacy. H. W. Crocker tells us: “Popes had often looked to France, as ‘the first daughter of the Church,’ to offset the turbulence of Italy or the overwhelming power of the Holy Roman Empire” (TRIUMPH: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church—A 2,000-Year History, 378). Prior to Clovis, the first king of France, “Arianism, overcome within the Empire, won a peculiar victory among the barbarians,” says Will Durant (Age of Faith, 46). Arianism was a threat to the potential power of the Papacy, and it was France that sought to resolve the Arian controversy. Wylie says:
The western Goths and Burgundians were sunk in Arianism; the Franks, from the beginning, had been truly Catholic; and the Popes did all they could to foster the

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One
growth of a power which, from similarity of creed, as well as from motives of policy, was so likely to become their surest ally (The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects, Book 1, 68).

Wylie says that, from the beginning, the Franks were viewed as the Papacy’s “surest ally” in the face of the Arian powers. Edward Gibbon shows that Clovis, the first king of France, established Papal power through his victories over the Alemanni, Burgundians, and the Visigoths (See Edward Gibbon. The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Vol. 2, 383). Gothic power was the strongest power in support of the Arian doctrine— keeping Papal power in check. When Clovis defeated and converted the Visigoths in 508, this left the Ostrogoths and the Vandals as the primary contenders for Arianism. The defeat of the Alemanni and Burgundians—especially the Visigoths—allowed the Papacy to begin her ascension to power. These defeats are the reasons the Papacy called Clovis, “The Eldest Son of the Church,” says Wylie (The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects, Book 1, 40). We completely agree with Crocker were he says:
More to the West’s taste was Clovis 1, king of the Franks until his death in 511. Like Constantine, he had a battlefield conversion to Catholicism and was its prime defender against the Western barbarian tribes (The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church—A 2,000-Year History, 104).

Let us ask: Why is this knowledge concerning France so important? This knowledge is important because not only did France enhance the power of the Papacy, but France also put an end to Papal power. The 1260 years of Papal supremacy clearly exist between France. God has given us landmarks—by means of France—to identify the time of the Papal supremacy. A complete century before the French Revolution, Jacques Philipot, based on his knowledge of the historical development of prophecy, foresaw Papal Rome’s ruination by the French. He asserted: “As the king of France did the utmost to enhance the glory of Popery, it will be the king of France who shall mostly contribute to her ruin” (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 726). There were others who identified France as the power that would bring an end to the Papal supremacy, such as Thomas Goodwin (1600 – 1680) who put out a work called: The French Revolution Foreseen, in 1639 (See Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 724). Protestants towards the end of the 1700’s saw France as a very important factor of Papal Rome’s emergence to power and also the declining of her power. Thomas Newton (1704 – 1782) saw papal power as an institution that was brought into existence through the rise of France. Newton not only predicted the French Revolution before it came into being, but he also predicted that the Papacy would be destroyed by that Revolution:
Rome therefore will finally be destroyed by some of the princes, who are reformed, or shall be reformed from popery: and as the kings of France have contributed greatly to her advancement, it is not impossible, nor improbable, that some time or other they may also be the principle authors of her destruction. France hath already shown some tendency towards a reformation, and therefore may appear more likely to effect such a revolution (Dissertations on the Prophecies, Vol. 3, 308).



When the French Revolution actually came into being, Christians began to see with more clarity that these prophetic ideas of Goodwin, Philipot, Newton, and others were becoming a fulfilled reality. In 1796, George Bell, the writer of the London Evangelical Magazine wrote that the Papacy was about to fall. Interestingly, he calculated the fall of the Papacy just one year before the event actually happened. On the basis of his knowledge of the Arian Ostrogoths, which suppressed Papal power, Bell argued:
If this be a right application of events to the prophecy, then Antichrist arose about the year 537, or at farthest about the year 553. He continues 42 months, or 1260 prophetical days, that is, 1260 years, Rev. xiii.5.; consequently we must expect his fall about the year 1797, or 1813 (George Bell. “Downfall of Antichrist,” The Evangelical Magazine, vol. 4, 56).

George Bell’s interpretation is very impressive, for the Papacy fell in 1798. Crocker tells us:
The occupying French declared Rome a Republic in 1798, and the aged Pope Pius VI was taken prisoner. He died in 1799 in Revolutionary France, where the constitutional clerics treated him as an unimportant old man, a heretic from the Enlightenment’s new religion of Reason, Nature, and the State (TRIUMPH: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church—A 2,000-Year History, 351).

Concerning the event of 1798, the historian, George Trevor, says:
The territorial possession of the clergy and monks were declared national property, and their former owners cast into prison. The papacy was extinct: not a vestige of its existence remained; and among all the Roman catholic powers not a finger was stirred in its defence. The Eternal City had no longer prince or pontiff; its bishop was a dying captive in foreign lands; and the decree was already announced that no successor would be allowed in his place (Rome: From the fall of the Western Empire, 440).

The 1,260 Years Between Justinian’s Code And Napoleon’s Code It is without doubt that God has given his people two landmarks to identify the 1,260 years. Not only is the 1,260 identified between France, as the establishers and the destroyers of the Papal power, but the 1,260 are identified between Justinian’s code and Napoleon’s code. As we have noted, the first copy of Justinian’s “Corpus iuris civilis” was published in 533. This code was designed to combine the Roman law with the Papal law as a unified dogma to rule Christendom. In 1798, after the fall of the Papacy, Napoleon set out to codify law into a more unified structure for the French Government. The Code of Napoleon is dated 1801 – 1804. Durant explains that in 1804 “the Code Civil des Francais, popularly the Code Napoleon—became the law of France” (The Age Of Napoleon, 182). Napoleon’s code was the greatest codification of law since the days of Justinian’s “Corpus iuris civilis.” What was the purpose of Napoleon’s code? Durant says in the following:
Napoleon unilaterally added to the Concordat 121 “Articles Organiques,” to protect the preeminence of the state over the Church in France. No papal bull, brief, or legate, no decree of a general council or national synod, was to enter

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One
France without explicit permission from the government (The Age Of Napoleon, 184).

The code of Napoleon placed the Papal power under the authority of secular government —ending the Papal supremacy. In essence, Justinian’s code set in motion the Papal supremacy, while Napoleon’s code declined the Papal supremacy. Notice that Justininian’s first publication of Corpus iuris civilis came in 533, and Napoleon’s code came between 1801 – 1804. Let us ask the question: What time frame existed between 533 and 1801? The 1,260 years of Papal power existed between the two codes. The Importance of 538 As The Beginning Of The 1,260 Why did George Bell, in 1796, as was cited before, predict that the Papacy would fall in the year 1797—one year shy of when the fall actually happened? Bell came to this conclusion based on the landmark of not only France, but also the landmark of Justinian. Moreover, Bell knew that the potentiality of an imperial Papacy, enhanced by Justinian, hinged on the Gothic controversy at Rome. George Bell thought that the Ostrogoths were defeated in 537, and calculated the 1260 years to 1797. As things actually turned out the Papacy fell one year latter. Edward King (1735 – 1807), after much historical research, clearly identified the 1,260 years between the removal of the Ostrogoths from Rome in 538 and the fall of the Papacy by Napoleon in 1798:
Is not the Papal power, at Rome, which was once so terrible, and so domineering, at an end? But let us pause a little. Was not this End, in other parts of the Holy Prophecies, foretold to be, at the END of 1260 years?—and was it not foretold by Daniel, to be at the END of a time, times, and half a time? which computation amounts to the same period. And now let us see; - hear; - and understand. THIS IS THE YEAR 1798. - And just 1260 years ago, in the very beginning of the year 538, Belisarius put an end to the Empire, and Dominion of the Goths, at Rome. He had entered the City on the 10th of the preceding December, in triumph, in the name of Justinian, Emperor of the East: and had soon after made it tributary to him: leaving thenceforward from A. D. 538, No Power in Rome, that could be said to rule over the earth—excepting the ECCLESIASTICAL PONTIFICAL POWER (Remarks on the Signs of the Times, 18, 19).

King argues that 538 was the beginning of the 1,260, because “from A. D. 538, [there was] No Power in Rome, that could be said to rule over the earth—except the ECCLESIASTICAL PONTIFICAL POWER.” The scholar, Richard Valpy (1754 – 1836), noticed the importance of the year 538 as the beginning of unhindered Papal power:
In the year 538, the Goths were driven from Rome, and at that time the aspiring Vigilius, by his secret intrigues with the artful Theodora, was promoted to the Pontifical dignity, which he purchased with 200 pounds of gold: an unequivocal proof of the character of a man of sin. During the Pontificate of Vigilius, the pretentions of the successors of St. peter to a general superiority began to be openly asserted; and shortly after, their supremacy was publicly acknowledged. It was at this time that the Pope assumed the title of Vicegerent of Jesus Christ . .


. . Now too celibacy was more generally enjoined. The use of Holy Water was first publically recommended by Vigilius in 538 (Sermons Preached on Public Occasions. With Notes, and an Appendix, Vol. 1, 258).

These are truly impressive observations between King and Valpy, for it follows logically from the circumstances of the Arian controversy that the 1,260 years should had begun when Arianism—being the wall to Papal supremacy—was finally removed from Rome. The Arian Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths were a serious problem to Papal power. We have seen the fact that the Arian Heruli were destroyed in 493, and Belisarius destroyed the Vandals in 534; and in 538, he freed Rome from Ostrogothic rule. The destruction of the Vandals in 534 and the removal of the Ostrogoths from the seat of Papal authority in 538 are extremely fundamental in the historical depiction of the two landmarks—France and the two codes. That the destruction of the Vandals in 534 and the removal of the Ostrogoths from Rome in 538, initiated Justinian’s imperial plan for the Papal supremacy is implicitly described in Cambridge Medieval History:
By carrying out the great work of reorganization in Africa and Italy, Justinian flattered himself that he had achieved the double object of restoring the “complete peace” in the West and “repairing the disasters” which war had heaped on the unhappy countries. It remains to be seen how far his optimism was justified, and to reckon the price paid by the inhabitants for the privilege of entering the Roman Empire once more (The Cambridge Medieval History. 2nd edition, Vol. 2, “Charles Diehl,” 22).

Concerning the removal of the Vandals and Ostrogoths, the writer of this document emphasizes that there was a certain price that was paid as a result of Rome’s liberation. Charles Diehl says, “The imperial restoration marked, at any rate in Italy, the beginning of a decadence which long darkened her history” (The Cambridge Medieval History. 2nd edition, Vol. 2, 24). What is the dark history that came as a result of the removal of the Vandals and Ostrogoths? Diehl says:
From the beginning of his reign Justinian promulgated the severest laws against heretics in 527 and 528. They were excluded from holding any public office, and from the liberal professions. Their meetings were forbidden and their churches shut. They were even deprived of some of their civil rights, for the Emperor declared that it was only right that orthodox persons should have more privileges in society than heretics, for whom “to exist is sufficient (The Cambridge Medieval History. 2nd edition, Vol. 2, 43).

After the removal of the Vandals and Ostrogoths, the Papacy had free reign to control Christendom. Note: The Roman Catholic Church gained power in 538 when the last of the Arian threat was removed from Rome. 1,260 years from that point extends to 1798. It is a fact of history that in 1798 the Papacy lost power to the French government. The Papacy can clearly be placed within 1,260 years of time. This is a historic reality, not an insignificant opinion. Those in Christendom who have not identified 1260 years to the Papacy simply need to study more.

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One The 1290 Days And The 1335 Days

According to Daniel 12, there is, not only the 1260 prophetic days (Dan. 12:7), but there are also two other periods consisting of 1290 and 1335 (Dan. 12:11, 12). What are these periods? We have established that the 1260 years were fulfilled between A.D. 538 – 1798. Are the 1290 and the 1335 connected to the 1260? Yes! What is the key that unlocks the mystery of these addition time prophecies? France is the key! In the preceding sections of this chapter, we saw that France enhanced the power of the Papacy. Prior to Clovis, “Arianism, overcome within the Empire, won a peculiar victory among the barbarians” (Will Durant, Age of Faith, 46). Arianism was a threat to the potential power of the papacy. Which European nation caused the rise of the Papacy? Wylie asserts:
The western Goths and Burgundians were sunk in Arianism; the Franks, from the beginning, had been truly Catholic; and the Popes did all they could to foster the growth of a power which, from similarity of creed, as well as from motives of policy, was so likely to become their surest ally (The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects, Book 1, 68).

Wylie says that, from the beginning, the Franks were viewed as the Papacy’s “surest ally” in the face of the Arian powers. Edward Gibbon shows that Clovis, the first king of France, established Papal power through his victories over the Alemanni, Burgundians, and the Visigoths (See Edward Gibbon. The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Vol. 2, 383). Gothic power was the strongest power in support of the Arian doctrine— keeping Papal power in check. When Clovis defeated the Visigoths in 508, this left the Ostrogoths and the Vandals as the primary contenders for Arianism. The defeat of the Alemanni and Burgundians—especially the Visigoths—allowed the Papacy to begin her ascension to power. These defeats are the reasons the Papacy called Clovis, “The Eldest Son of the Church,” says Wylie (The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects, Book 1, 40). We completely agree with Crocker were he says, “More to the West’s taste was Clovis 1, king of the Franks until his death in 511. Like Constantine, he had a battlefield conversion to Catholicism and was its prime defender against the Western barbarian tribes” (TRIUMPH: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church—A 2,000-Year History, 104). Crocker also says, “Popes had often looked to France, as ‘the first daughter of the Church,’ to offset the turbulence of Italy or the overwhelming power of the Holy Roman Empire” (TRIUMPH: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church—A 2,000-Year History, 378). In the year 508 much of the Arian power was broken by Clovis. History perspicuously shows that after 508, the Papacy began to increase rapidly, until, in 538, “There was no power in Rome that could be said to rule the world, except the Ecclesiastical Pontifical Power” (Edward King. Remarks on the Signs of the Times, 18, 19). If France had not broken the power of the Alemanni, Burgundians, and Visogoths, the Papacy most likely would have never defeated the Vandals and the Ostrogoths. Thus, France and the year 508 are very significant issues in prophecy. Interestingly, the years’ 508 – 1798 = 1290. Moreover, if we add 508 + 1335, we come up with 1843—very close to 1844. Is it an accident of history that France surrounds the 1,260 years as Papal



Rome’s supporters and destroyers, and is it an accident that the 1,290 and 1335 connect to the 1,260 years and the 2,300 years? Not likely! These time prophecies represent pieces that join perfectly into a greater whole around the Papacy. The First Phase Of The Abomination Of Desolation In The Papacy (In Conjunction With This Section; See Chapter 5 Diagram Next To Chapter 5 Icon) The 1,260 years constitute the First Phase of the Abomination of Desolation in the Papal power. This fact is confirmed by the clarity of Daniel chapters’ 8 and 12, which state that the 1,290 years initiate the “set up” of the Abomination of Desolation, whereas the 2,300 years reach its finality after the Transgression of Desolation. In other words, the Abomination of Desolation comes after the beginning of the 1,290 years and before the completion of the 2,300 years. Notice the following scriptures: Daniel 8: 13. Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, "How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression (Heb. Pesha: “transgression, rebellion”) of desolation (Shamem), the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled under foot? 14. And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 12: 11. And from the time that the daily (Tamid) sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination (Heb. Shiqquts: “Detested thing”) of desolation (Heb. Shamem: “to be desolated, appalled”) is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12. Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days. Daniel 11: 31. And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination (Shiqquts) of desolation (Shamem). NKJ Matthew 24: 15. Therefore when you see the abomination (Gr. Bdelugma: “foul thing, detestable thing) of desolation (Eremosis: “making desolate”),' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place whoever reads, let him understand What was the essence of the Papal Abomination of Desolation during the 1,260 years? Notice that in Daniel 8, the little horn brought the Transgression of Desolation by means of disrupting the Daily (Tamid); notice in Daniel 12:11 that the “taking away of the daily” is put in juxtaposition with the setting up of the Abomination of Desolation; notice in Daniel 11:31 that the defilement of the sanctuary—by means of taking away the daily—constitutes the Abomination of Desolation; and notice in Matthew 24:15 that

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

Jesus warned the people—according to Daniel—that the Abomination of Desolation was future from His day. Notice that the “taking away of the Daily” is inextricably tied to the Abomination of Desolation. The Daily in Daniel chapter’s 11 and 12 is the same as Daniel 8. We have already established in chapter four that the Daily points to the priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. Daniel 8:13, 14 asks how long the sanctuary was to be trodden under foot. The answer to the question is: in 2,300 days, the sanctuary will be brought back to its proper state. We have analyzed that the 2,300 days are inextricably connected to the 70 weeks of Daniel 9, meaning, both the 2300 days and the 70 weeks begin at the same time. The 70 weeks were completed at A.D. 34, and the 2300 were completed at 1844. Between A.D. 34 and 1844 exists the cruel history of Rome and especially the Papacy. It was during the reign of the Papacy that the Daily was cast down. It is without doubt that Daniel 8:11 – 14; 11:31; 12:11, 12—when speaking about the Daily—are talking about the same issue. The daily in all these instances revolve around the disruption of the priestly ministry of Christ by the Papal power. As we saw in chapter 4, the Pope claims to be the successor of the Melchizedek priesthood. During the 1,260 years, this blasphemy along with all the Papal boasts, of claiming to be God on earth, disrupted the connection that many people had with Christ—the true Melchizedek priest—for the Papal substitution of Popery and the priest system in the place of Christ could do no other than defame the ministry of Christ into the image of corruptible man. Thus, the “man of sin” was manifested in Christendom for 1,260 years making himself Christ. Martin Luther emphasized:
If Rome thus believes and teaches with the knowledge of popes and cardinals (which I hope is not the case), then in these writings I freely declare that the true Antichrist is sitting in the temple of God and is reigning in Rome—that empurpled Babylon—and that the Roman Curia is the synagogue of Satan (Cited in The Reformation, by Durant, 351).

Daniel 12:11, 12 adds the additional time prophecies of the 1,290 and 1,335 and says “Blessed is he that waits, and comes to the thousand three hundred and five days.” Why is this a blessing? As we are going to see in the final chapters of this course, the year 1844 is the beginning of the “time of the end.” This is when God’s final movement comes together in preparation for the Harvest. This year is also the beginning of a second work in the heavenly sanctuary—the judgment of the saints or the Antitypical Day of Atonement. We must underscore, before finishing this topic, that the 1,260 years constitute the first phase of the Abomination of Desolation in the Papal power. Why the first phase? As we are going to see in the last chapters of this course, Revelation predicted that the Beast would receive a wound and his wound would be healed. In essence the final resurrection of the Papacy—with the institution of the Mark of the Beast —will constitute the second and final phase of the Abomination of Desolation in the Papal power. Conclusions We must conclude this chapter by stating that 1,260 years of Papal supremacy has taken place, and every identifiable mark of the little horn has clearly been identified in the Roman Catholic Church. We can truly ask dispensationalists to show us any power



outside of the Papacy that so thoroughly matches Daniel’s description of the “little horn.” They cannot! They only have conjecture of an imagined antichrist that is to come in a non-existent—in our day—seven years. They have given up a solid foundation of Historicism whereby prophecy can indeed be measured, and they have accepted a prophetic system that is totally mythical and hypothetical; for they can’t compare their predictions of Antichrist and his imaginary doings in the future with anything that has transpired. Historicism is the Biblical and logical approach to Prophetic interpretation. Why is this the case? Historicism is the proper method of interpretation, because it is congruous with the nature of God as described in Revelation 1:4, 8: God who is and who was and who is to come. Revelation 1:19 confirms that the prophecies in Revelation are Historical: “Write these things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which take place after this.” The God who was and is and is to come has worked, is working, and will work for His people until the end of time. In the next chapter (Part 2) we are going to see unequivocally that the number of 666 is the number of Popery. The following chapter elucidates on the Pagan system of sun worship. We find out that the number 666 is inextricably connected to the sun, and we find that traditions revolving around sun worship—with the number 666—have filled the Papacy. We will see further how vain it is to expect the Antichrist to be anything other than what comes from the Roman Catholic Church.

Works Cited
Planned by J.B. Bury, M.A., F.B.A.; Edited by H.M. Gwatkin, M.A. & J.P. Whitney, D.D. The Cambridge Medieval History. 2nd edition, 6 Vols.: The Rise Of The Saracens And The Foundation Of The Western Empire (Cambridge: At The University Press, 1926), Vol. 2 Berry, Grinton W. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1978) Crocker III, H. W. TRIUMPH: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church—A 2,000-Year History (Roseville, California: Forum, An Imprint of Prima Publishing, 2001) Durant, Will. THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION: The Age Of Faith (New York: MJF Books, 1950) Durant, Will. THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION: The Reformation (New York: MJF Books, 1957) Durant, Will and Ariel. THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION: PART XI: The Age Of Napoleon (New York: Simon And Schuster, 1975) Dowling, John. A.M., Pastor Of The Berean Church, New York: The History Of Romanism: From The Earliest Corruptions Of Christianity To The Present Time. (New York: Edward Walker, 114 Fulton St., 1845)

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

Eckhardt, Carl Conrad. The Papacy and World-Affairs (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937) Froom, LeRoy Edwin. The PROPHETIC FAITH OF OUR FATHERS, The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, Volume II, Pre-Reformation and Reformation Restoration, and Second Departure, published by the Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington D.C., Copyright 1948, Flick, A. C. The Rise of the Mediaeval Church (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1909) Geiermann, Peter. The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (St. Louis, B. Herder book Co., 1957 ed.) Gibbon, Edward. The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire. 3 Vols. (New York: The Modern Library by Random House, Inc), Vol. 2 Hagee, John. Beginning Of The End (Nashville. Atlanta. London. Vancouver: Thomas Nelson Pub. 1996) Harnack, Adolph. What Is Christianity? (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903) Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965; published originally in 1927) Keenan, Stephen. A Doctrinal Catechism (3rd American ed., rev.: New York, Edward Dunigan & Bro., 1876) Lahaye, Tim. Revelation: Illustrated And Made Plain (Lamplighter Books Grand Rapids Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973, 75) Larkin, Clarence. The Book Of Daniel (Philadelphia, Pa.: Rev. Clarence Larkin Est., 1929) Larkin, Clarence. The Book Of Revelation (Philadelphia, Pa.: Erwin W. Moyer Co., 1919.) McEvedy, Colin, The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History (Baltimore, Md: Penguin Books; Printed by Jesse Broad & Co, 1964) Maxwell, Mervyn. GOD CARES VOL. 1: The Message of Daniel (Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press Pub. Assoc. 1981) Smiles, Samuel. The Huguenots In France: After The Revocation Of The Edict Of Nantes: With A Visit To The Country Of The Vaudois (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1874)



Wylie, J. A. The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects: Being The Evangelical Alliance First Prize Essay On Popery. 4 books (London: Hamilton, Adams, And Co. Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot. 1867)

Sources Cited From Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers Vol. 2:
“Coferences . . . Between Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer,” in The Works of Nicholas Ridley, D. D. Sometime Lord Bishop of London, Martyr, 1555. Edited for The Parker Society, by the Rev. Henry Christmas. (Cambridge: University Press, 1841) Edited for the Parker Society by Aubrey Townsend. The Writings of John Bradford: Sermons, Meditations, Examinations. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1848, 1853) Vol. 1, pp. 441, 442 Edward King. Remarks on the Signs of the Times. (Philadelphia: reprinted by Jas. Humphreys from the London 1799 ed, 1800) George Trevor. Rome: From the fall of the Western Empire. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1868) George Bell. “Downfall of Antichrist,” The Evangelical Magazine (London: 1796), vol. 4 Heinrich Bullinger, Daniel Sapientissimus Dei Propheta. (Tiguri: C. Froschoverus, 1576) Hugh Latimer, Sermons by Hugh Latimer: “Memoir of Hugh Latimer,” Edited for the Parker Society by George Elwes Corrie. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1844 – 45) Edited for the Parker Society by Aubrey Townsend. The Writings of John Bradford: Sermons, Meditations, Examinations. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1848, 1853) Vol. 1 John Wyclif’s De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae. Edited by Rudolf Buddensieg (Published for the Wyclif Society by Trubner & Co., 1905 – 07), Vol. 3 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1936), Vol. 2 John Huss, The Letters of John Hus, edited by Herbert B. Workman and R. Martin Pope. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904) Dr. Martin Luther‘s, Sammtliche Schriften. Edited by Joh[ann] Georg Walch. ( St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1881 -1910.)

Copyright 8/27/03


System Of Antichrist: Part One

Dr. Martin Luther’s sammtliche Werke. Edited by Ernst Ludwig Enders and Johann Konrad Irmischer. (Frankfurt am Main und Erlangen: C. Heyder, etc., 1828 - 70. ), Vol. 24 Martin Luther. Translated from: Passional Christi und Antichristsi mit Bildern von Lucas Cranach dem Alteren ( Leipzig: Robert Hoffman ) Richard Valpy. Sermons Preached on Public Occasions. With Notes, and an Appendix. (London: Sold by Longman, etc., 1811) Vol. 1 Thomas Newton. Dissertations on the Prophecies. (Northampton, Mass.: William Butler, 1796) Vol. 3 Thomas Cranmer. Edited for the Parker Society by John Edmund Cox. The Works of Thomas Cranmer: Miscellaneous Writings and Letters. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1844 – 46), Vol. 2 William Tyndale, The Exposition of the First Epistle of St. John in Works: Expositions and Notes (Cambridge: The University Press, 1848 – 50), Vol. 2
William Tyndale, [Works], Vol. 2. Expositions and Notes: The Exposition of the First Epistle of St. John. Edited for the Parker Society by Henry Walter. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1848 - 50) William Tyndale, [Works] Vol. 1, Doctrinal Treatises: The Obedience of a Christian Man

Sources Cited From
Bible Readings For The Home: A Studyof Vital Scripture Topics in Question-andAnswerForm. Contributed by a Large Number of Bible Scholars (Published Jointly by Review And Herald Publishing Association: Washington, DC; Hagerstown, MD; and Pacific Press Publishing Association: Boise, ID; Oshawa, Ontario, Canada, 1963, 1967, 1980) Corpus Juris Canonici (1555 - 56 ed.), Vol. 3, Extravagantes Communes, Book 1, chap. 1, col. 29, translated from a gloss on the words Porro Subesse Romano Pontiff Christopher Marcellus’ Oration in the Fifth Lateran Council, 4th session, in J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum . . .Collectio, Vol. 32, col. 761 “The Decretals of Gregory IX,” Book 1, title 7, chap. 3, in Corpus Juris Canonici (1555 56 ed.), Vol. 2, col. 203 James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers (1917 ed.)



La Civilta Cattolica, March 18, 1871, quoted in Leonard Woolsey Bacon, An Inside View of the Vatican Council (American Tract Society ed.) Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de Controversiis, Tom. 2, “Controversia Prima,” Book 2 (“De Conciliorum Auctoritate” [On the Authority of Councils]), chap. 17 (1628 ed., Vol. 1, p. 266) T. R. Birks, The Four Prophetic Empires, and the Kingdom of Messiah: Being an Exposition of the First Two Visions of Daniel (1845 ed.) W. E. H. Lecky, History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe (1910 ed.), Vol. 2

Return to Prophetic Toolchest Main Page

Go to Next Chapter

Copyright 8/27/03

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times