THE ANTICHRIST
by Maurice Roberts,originally entitled “Francis Turretine on the Antichrist”
reproduced, with permission, from the August/September 1991 issue of The Banner of Truth Magazine

Of all enemies ever to vex the Church of Christ none is greater than that ofAntichrist and no point of difference between Protestants and Roman Catholicsis more relevant for discussion than this. Catholic writers labour hard toconceal the likeness of their Papacy to the Antichrist and so we need to studythis question with extra care. We shall show two things: the characteristics ofAntichrist as the Bible states them; the person to whom they refer in theunfolding of church history.

Scripture sometimes employs the term “antichrist” to refer to errorists ingeneral (e.g., 1 Jn 2:18). But our concern here is with the usage which refersthe term to one notorious figure who is both the enemy of Christ and alsoChrist’s pretended substitute. He apes Christ so as to oppose Him moreeffectively. We do not use such terms as Antichrist about the Papacy out of adesire to slander the Catholic church but to show one reason why we cannot doother than separate from it. Our view that the Papacy is the Antichrist is thatheld by early Protestants in general, as their Confessions of Faith show.Robert Bellarmire, the famous Catholic apologist, acknowledges this to be inconfessional view of Protestants.

Scripture reveals the place, time and person ofthe Antichrist. As to place, he will sit “in the temple of God” (2 Thes 2:4),by which Paul means that he will be in the church, and will have his seat in“mystery Babylon” (Rev 17:5). As to time, he will appear, not at the end of theworld as Roman Catholic writers claim, but from apostolic times onward, as Paulstates (2 Thes 2:7), although his growth in the church is from small beginningsat first until, with the removal of the power which early resisted him,Antichrist becomes visible and manifest. With the removal of this restrainingforce (whose identity we look at later), Antichrist gradually emerged inhistory in a visible form.

As to the personal identity of Antichrist, this is to begathered especially from various things ascribed to him by Scripture. For onething, there was to occur an apostasy from the faith (2 Thes 2:3) at the timewhen Antichrist would be revealed. This would coincide with the rise ofdevilish doctrines in the church (1 Tim 4:1–3) and of the spurious miraclesreferred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:9. A second feature of Antichrist was said byPaul to be his opposition to Christ. The third would be hisown self-exaltation. He would not be content to be thought a manbut would exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped (2Thes 2:4). From this exalted position he would do all he could to opposeChrist. The extraordinary claims and conduct of the various popes havefulfilled to the letter this characteristic of Antichrist, which the ApostlePaul has given to us.

Further marks of Antichrist are that he is the “man of sin” and “son ofperdition” (2 Thes 2:3). By the first term is to be understood the fact thatAntichrist would both be a notorious sinner himself and would be an instigatorof sin in others. The application of the term to many of the popes fitsperfectly, since popes have regarded themselves as “subject to no law” but tobe a law unto themselves. They have been promoters of corrupt religion amongall who have followed them.

A further mark of Antichrist is said in Scripture to be idolatry, to which hecompels his followers (Rev 13:16–17). This is another obvious feature of thePapacy. Then again, there is the power he exerts to forbid men who buy or sellwithout his permission (Rev 13:17). Papal edicts against the Albigenses, and inthe times of Wycliffe and Huss, exactly fulfilled this prophecy.

God has given further identity marks of Antichrist in the New Testamentreferences to the name and number of the Beast (Rev 13:17–18). These are shownby Turretine to be cryptic references to forms of papal oppression.

Antichrist would become known by the fraudulent “signs and lying wonders” whichhe would pretend to do (2 Thes 2:9). This sign is not to be found among Jews orTurks or Greek Orthodox. But it is a feature of Roman Catholicism. To thesesigns we must see the Apostles also add those of cruelty and violence.Antichrist is to act as a “beast” and to make martyrs of men. Other marks ofAntichrist could be adduced, but these must have suffice. Those who wish tolook at further evidence may read the writings of the many learned Reformedscholars who have written about this subject, such as Whitaker, Junius,Downame, Mede and others.

Even Pope Gregory 1, writing about the year A.D. 600, declared that anyone whotermed himself “universal priest” or wished to be so termed, was a forerunnerof Antichrist! There are various testimonies in succeeding centuries bydifferent authors of the church, notably in Hildebrand’s pontificate, to thesame effect. These Turretine gives, along with the references, his purposebeing to show that the identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist ofScripture by the Reformed churches is nothing new but had been made centuriesearlier by various writers in the Roman Catholic church before the ProtestantReformation.

Catholic apologists have attempted to obscure and cloud this whole question ofthe Papacy and the Antichrist by advancing the following arguments: First, thatAntichrist would be one single person who would appear in the distant future;second, that Antichrist would be a Jew who would restore the Jewish temple withother ceremonies of Judaism; third, that Enoch and Elijah would come to opposeAntichrist, according to Revelation 11; fourth, that Antichrist would deny theincarnation of Christ and attack all the ordinances of Christ, according to thetext 1 John 2:22. Since these things cannot be said of the Pope, Catholicapologists attempt to deny his identity as Antichrist; fifth, they refer to theviews of the Church Fathers to the effect that either Caligula or Simon Magnus,Trajan or someone else must be the Antichrist of Scripture.

Turretine devotes the rest of his treatise to refuting these opinions of RomanCatholic writers. His arguments are as follows:

(1) The Antichrist (or “man of sin”) cannot be a term referring to one singleperson but must refer to an office or succession of persons in office in thevisible church. Paul expressly declares that Antichrist’s beginnings, or firstmanifestations, were in his own day (2 Thes 2:7—“doth already work”) whereashis eventual destruction would not occur till the second coming of Christ (2Thes 2:8—“whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming”).

(2) The Scriptures say that Antichrist was to emerge in “the last times,” orNew Testament times, but not that his coming was to be postponed to thevery end of those times. The entire gospel age is meant by“the last time.”

(3) As to the claim that Antichrist was to be a Jew of the tribe of Dan—this ispure fiction found in some earlier writers without scriptural basis. Not evenBellarmire, the Roman Catholic apologist, pins much faith on it.

(4) The notion about Enoch and Elijah is little better. The Latin Vulgatetranslation of Ecclesiasticus 44:16 (“he [Enoch] was translated into paradiseto give repentance to the nations”) is misleading and ought rather, followingthe original Greek, to be translated: “he was translated into paradise as anexample of repentance to future generations.” It is not a literal but mysticalElijah who is referred to by the prophet in Malachi 4:5.

(5) As to the Catholic objection to the fact that Antichrist will deny Christ(a thing, they say, not done by the Papacy), we answer that the Antichristreferred to by the Scriptures would not deny Christ openly, as a professedenemy, but would deny Him nonetheless as a professed friend of Christ. To thiseffect is the telling comment of Augustine of Hippo: “Antichrist is the moredeceitful in that he professes Jesus Christ with the mouth but denies Him byhis actions.” This the Popes do because they arrogate to themselves the threeoffices of Christ, bury the gospel under their own traditions, and destroyChrist’s redemptive work by their own masses, merits, purgatory andindulgences.

Furthermore, the Papacy has substituted idolatrous worship for the pure worshipand ordinances of the New Testament, as Daniel 11:31 prophesied that he would.For Antiochus Epiphanes in Old Testament times was a type and figure of theAntichrist who was to come.

(6) Lastly, it has to be said that the early Church Fathers were not prophetsbut only interpreters of God’s Word. It stands to reason that the ChurchFathers could not throw much light on the subject of Antichrist because it isalways easier to speak of prophecies which are fulfilled than of those whichare still to be fulfilled. As a matter of fact, the rise of the Papacy occurredafter their day. So they are particularly ill-qualified to speak on thissubject.

We regard our case as proved, then, that the Papacy is the Antichrist ofScripture and that we, the Reformed, are fully justified in our separation fromthe Roman Catholic church.

Key Passages fromScripture

The above synopsis of Turretine’s disputation has had to leave out many itemsof importance to his argument. But it offers a summary of his leading thoughts.We turn now to look at some of the principal passages of Scripture which hiscase rests on:

1. 2 Thessalonians 2:3–12

Turretine’s view of this key passage includes the followingelements. There is here a revelation made of an arch-enemy of Christ who wouldemerge in the course of history. The full revelation of this mysterious man oflawlessness was in Paul’s day held back by the presence and power of the Romanempire. But the mystery was “already [at] work” (v. 7) and, once Imperial Romefell in the fifth century A.D., the anti-Christian force at work in the Churchwould mature and grow. So the Antichrist (the term is used synonymously withthe “man of sin”) is not a figure to be looked for at the end of the Christiandispensation but rather a mysterious process of spiritual evil concentrated inthat church-office which we know as the Papacy.

This unscriptural office would attach to itself blasphemously arrogant powersand, under the guise of love to Christ, would act as His enemy and substitute.The term “Antichrist” bears the twofold sense of one who is against Christ andone who is His ape or vicar.

In the light of the evidence given by Paul in this passage of Scripture, theway to identify this Antichrist is to search in the annals of Church history tosee what, if any, figure has ever emerged in the Christian Church who mightcorrespond with this description. As a matter of fact, the one ecclesiasticalinstitution which appears exactly to fit the evidence is that of the Papacy.

This phenomenon is the key which fits every lock in the passage. The Papacyarose just when the Roman Empire collapsed. The mystery of its pretensions topower and authority grew and developed after A.D. 410 till, by the later MiddleAges and the time of Hilderbrand, popes were claiming to be God’s solevice-regents on earth with power to open and shut heaven itself, to make andunmake laws, to demand worship of mankind and to perform “miracles.” All theseclaims were made by the Papacy in the name of Christ and on the assertion of Hisexpress authority. The corruption of the lives of many popes is well known andtheir violent persecutions of God’s people is a thing very fully documented inthe annals of the past.

It therefore follows that we must make the identification to which Paul’sepistle leads us. The Antichrist of this passage is the Papacy. Nor can weexpect the Papacy to be entirely abolished till the second coming of Christ atthe end of time.

We might add the comment, from the point of view of this twentieth century,that the popes who have arisen since Turretine’s time have not withdrawn theirextravagant claims one iota but have in various ways added to them, notably bythe dogma of papal infallibility brought in by Pius IX in 1870.

2. Revelation 17

This chapter adds in various ways to the identification ofthe Antichrist given by Paul in the above-discussed passage. It refers to a“mystery Babylon” (v. 5) full of filthiness and spiritual fornication whoseinfluence would infect the whole earth. Though gorgeously arrayed in gold andscarlet with precious stones and pearls, its whole inward character is one ofblasphemy, of abominations before God and wicked cruelty. An extraordinary markof identification of this mystery is given in that she is said to have her seatat a place where there are “seven mountains” (v. 9). It is notorious that theonly city on earth to fit that description is Rome, where the Papacy has alwayshad its seat and from which their church takes its very name. This mysteriousagency described here by John in Revelation 17 has the power to intoxicate thenations. This well accords with the fascination which Catholicism exerts overmankind and is exerting at the present time. For as alcoholic drink robs men oftheir reason, so does ecumenical propaganda rob church leaders of their abilityto see the errors of Catholic doctrine or to remember Rome’s cruel treatment inthe past.

3. 1 Timothy 4:1–3

This apostolic prophecy describes certain forms which theantichristian apostasy would take on. These include a departure from theoriginal faith of Christ and the introduction into the church of unscripturaland therefore devilish doctrines, such as forbidding to marry and the commandnot to eat meats. Every one of these marks can be found in the Papacy.

4. Revelation 13:11ff

This apocalyptic beast is said to look like a lamb but tospeak like a dragon. He supersedes the first beast but is like him in tyrannyand is more subtle in that he appears harmless, while at the time he deceivesand enslaves men’s souls to error. He has power to put to death all who refuseto receive his mark in their hands and heads and he bears the mystery-number of666. The first beast mentioned in the chapter is evidently intended torepresent the persecuting power of the Roman Empire. This second beast is takenby many writers to be Rome ecclesiastical. It exercises the persecuting powerof pagan Rome but has the outward appearance of innocence.

Who is Really Studyingthe Question Today?

The above notes give some idea of how Turretine believed there were exegeticalgrounds for regarding the Papacy as the Antichrist. We may conclude our reviewof his disputation by making some observations of our own.

It is a strange fact that many leaders in the Reformed churches have in recentyears given every appearance of being uncomfortable with the view of the Papacyearlier held by our great theologians and divines, among whom Turretine held avery high place. It is claimed that the modern Roman Catholic church is morehumane, enlightened and scholarly than in the past and that therefore it needsnot be feared of shunned as it was by our great old divines.

To all such claims it needs to be said that they miss the mark and are asidefrom the main point at issue. The question which faces us is whether or not thestandard Protestant Confessions and the older writers were justified in theiridentification of the Papacy with the Antichrist or whether they held theiropinion on this subject without good biblical and historical reason.

It is not worthy of us or of our Reformed Confessions to dismiss hastily theidentification they made of the Papacy with the Antichrist. Those who, by anassured wave of the hand, dismiss the anti-papal clauses in the WestminsterConfession of Faith and in the 1689 Baptist Confession, have in many cases, wefear, never sat down to make a thorough study of the matter. Yet it is asubject which currently cries out for magisterial and authoritative treatment.When the Reformers claimed to see “the man of sin” sitting in the Vatican in Rome,they were not indulging in invective or bandying insults. They wereendeavouring to exegete Scripture, evaluate the facts of Church history and,above all, save the Church of Christ from committingspiritual fornication.

To identify the modern Church of Rome with the Church of the New TestamentScriptures or with the early Christian Church is impossible, whether one looksat its doctrine, practices, traditions, objectives or office-bearers. Yet everyday weak Protestant spokesmen, some of them evangelical by profession, areshowing themselves prepared to let their churches fall back to Rome for want of a decided and clear-cutaffirmation that the Church of Rome is the same in doctrine as it was at theReformation. The blame for this state of affairs is partly due to the collapseof the older Protestant attitude which we have sought to summarise here fromthe works of Turretine.

It is the present writer’s opinion that the “strong delusion” spoken of by Paul(2 Thes 2:11) is closer to us all than we realise. From the view of the olderdogmaticians that the papal church is the Antichrist, many have, even incircles once staunch for truth, slipped into the weaker view that it is onlyone manifestation of Antichrist. It is a comparatively short step from there tothe belief, all too prevalent in the modern church, that it is no Antichrist atall but a genuine Christian denomination having no more weaknesses or errorsthan any other group of Christians.

To those who are prepared to re-think this whole issue and its momentouscontemporary implications, we wish to make this plea. Read again the olderProtestant writers on this subject. If authors like Turretine are to be judgedwrong, then let us see the evidence to the contrary. But if they were right, weare oath-bound to God as Bible-believers to obey the command of Christ: “Comeout of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that yereceive not of her plagues” (Rev 18:4).

If more of our modern church leaders were studying this profoundly importantsubject on their knees before God, there would be no landslide back to Rome viathe Ecumenical Movement. Nor would there be any fraternising of Protestantswith Catholic clergy, sometimes by means of the Charismatic Movement. The factthat both are happening apace reflects the tragic ignorance on the part of toomany of the theological writings of such masters in Israel as FrancisTurretine.

Francis Turretine

The name Turretine (Turretini) has for over three centuries been held in highesteem by all lovers of Reformed Theology. The first member of the family ofimportance is Francesco Turretini, who emigrated from Italy to Geneva forreligious reasons in 1579. His son, Benedict, pastor and professor of Theologyin Geneva (1618), took an active part in introducing the decrees of the Synodof Dort into France.

His son, the illustrious François, known to history as Francis Turretine, wasregarded in Geneva as a true successor to Calvin in theological competence. Hisorthodoxy was deemed impeccable among the Reformed of his day and his majorwork, entitled TheologicalInstitutes, is even nowavailable in full only in Latin, though in the past it served as a textbook forsuccessive generations of the theological students [ed.: This is now availableas the Institute of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., P&R, 1996]. He was born inGeneva in 1623, served there as pastor and professor of Theology and died therein 1687.

Jean Alphonse, son of Francis and referred to as “Turretini the Younger,” was arepresentative of a more moderate theology. He modified the stricter Calvinismof his father, and it was partly through his influence that Geneva fell intotheological decline at the close of the seventeenth century.

Our concern here is with a lesser known Latin work of the great FrancisTurretine known as his Displayof Antichrist, which ishis seventh disputation on the theme of why Protestants must separate from theChurch of Rome. (The work appears in vol. 4 of the Collected Writings, Edinburgh edition, 1848.)

Turretine’s concern is to show some of the exegetical reasons for identifyingthe biblical Antichrist to be the Papacy. Since even Reformed writers have longsince ceased to speak with one voice on the subject, it is timely thatTurretine’s arguments should see the light of day again.

—3 March 2002