THE DOCTRINE OF ANTICHRIST

The doctrine of antichrist made its appearance into the world soon after the doctrine of Christ was manifest in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. The apostle John in the fourth chapter of his first Epistle says, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world." When John wrote this letter, it was addressed not to those outside the church, but to those within, and refers especially to things which were being manifested among themselves; and we are not by any means to suppose that the apostle intended us to understand that the persons who denied that Christ had come in the flesh actually denied that Christ had come into the world at all, or that his coming was still in the future. By no means! Paul shows how it was with the evil workers in their day in his second letter to the Corinthians, where he says, "I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtility, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with me."

God is the author of certain doctrines which he sent his Son into the world to teach and manifest in his own person; and he who changes his doctrine thereby changes the object of worship, for God is worshipped through the truth, and not through a lie. The old man of the flesh has his own theories of "the eternal fitness of things," and of what is holy, and what is unholy, which appeared in the apostle Peter himself before he was instructed; for when Jesus began on one occasion to show how that he must go unto Jerusalem and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day, then Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "Be it far from thee, Lord. This shall not be unto thee." But he turned and said unto Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan, for thou art an offence unto me; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

Thus fleshly minded men in the apostles' days began to account for the purity of Christ's life and the excellence of his character and teachings, from a fleshly standpoint, not savoring the things which be of God, but those which be of men, in their blind zeal to honor God according to the dictates of their own fleshly minds, instead of according to what is written. And so they began to teach that Christ's nature was not like the nature of other men, and that he was not "conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity,” as other men are; but on the contrary, that his conception was immaculate and holy, and as a result his flesh was not sinful flesh like the flesh of all his brethren, but was more free, or rather, entirely free, from the taint of sin. Thus they destroy the very foundation of Christianity, for hear what Paul

said to the Romans, "What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh."

Now when Paul here says that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, he means, in plain language, that Christ's flesh was sinful flesh, or how could he by sacrificing himself condemn sin in the flesh, if there was no sin in his flesh to condemn? Moreover, that which he here calls “sin in the flesh," he elsewhere calls "the devil," saying (Heb. 2: 14), "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil."

Now "to condemn sin in the flesh," and "to destroy the devil in the flesh," are one and the same thing, and these are interchangeable terms, either one meaning the same thing. It should be evident, then, to any intelligent, reasoning person, that sin, or the devil, must have existed in Christ's flesh, or else he could not condemn sin in the flesh, and kill the devil by death first in his own person. He resisted sin from within and from without, even unto death; but when he was quickened by the Spirit, and changed from mortality to immortality, the principle of sin and death was extinguished in his body, so that now his body was perfect like the bodies of the angels of God, neither can he die any more. Death," says Paul, "hath no more dominion over him," yet he has flesh and bones as he did before he died. The doctrine of antichrist, therefore, may be summed up as follows: it is a theory or doctrine whereby false teachers and blind guides undertake to account for the evil and wicked works of some men by claiming that they were more emphatically and more deeply dyed in sin, and more intensely shapen in iniquity by conception, than other men are; and thus were qualified to work wickedness and to antagonize the way of the Lord, on the one hand; and again on the other hand, that Jesus Christ, the Son of Mary, and Son of God, was free from sin by reason of the fact that his conception was immaculate and holy, and that he was not like his brethren; that whereas his brethren's flesh was sinful flesh, his flesh was free from sin; and as his conception was immaculate, he was thereby qualified to maintain the way of the Lord.

If a man claims that such men as Judas or Cain were qualified to antagonize the way of the Lord by being deeper dyed in sin by conception than other men, how much more would Jesus be qualified by an immaculate conception, to do good work? How can he who maintains the first, deny the second? To be consistent, he must accept it; for when a man has once espoused and declared a doctrine, it has then passed out of his hands, and the author of it is responsible for whatever legitimately grows out of it. It is written, "Avoid the beginning of evil, for it is like the letting out of water."

men at the church at Corinth denied the resurrection of the dead, Paul charged them with all that logically grew out of it, and they would no doubt demur, and protest solemnly against the charge that they thereby denied the resurrection of Christ, and made the apostles liars and false witnesses of God, and that they held that they that were fallen asleep in Christ had perished.

The inspired men of God never speculated with men's conception to account for their good deeds or their bad deeds by such means, but taught the sound doctrine that mankind are one, that all nations are of one blood, that there is one kind of flesh of men, which is called sinful flesh, and that Christ took part of the same to accomplish human redemption. The doctrine of antichrist was looked upon with abhorrence by the apostles. John, in writing to the Elect Lady says, "Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist "; and these deceivers were in the church, for he adds, "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come unto you any that bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, for he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds."

But the doctrine of antichrist has made steady progress until the present time, and now constitutes one of the chief foundation stones of the greatest religious systems of the world. And it may be well to furnish a few examples of the manner in which the doctrine of antichrist is set forth and taught in their ministrations in their religious and doctrinal books of the churches. On page 702 of Matthew Henry's commentary, it is said, "Christ appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh,- not sinful, for he was holy, harmless, undefiled, but in the likeness of that flesh which was sinful. He took upon him that nature which was corrupt, though perfectly abstracted from the corruptions of it."

This is an open contradiction of Paul's doctrine of Christ. When he said, "God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," he meant us to understand that his flesh was like the flesh of other men; therefore as the flesh of other men is sinful flesh, his flesh likewise would be sinful flesh also. This may easily be seen to be a true construction of Paul's words, because he says again in his letter to the Hebrews (2:14), "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same. . ." (verse 17) (verse 17) "Therefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." This testimony should be conclusive to every honest and intelligent person.

Again he says (Heb. 4:15), "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,"— that is, without committing sin, as Peter also says that he did not sin (I Pet. 2:22). Paul says, "He was tempted in all points as we are." James says, "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed." But, say these Presbyterian clerical commentators, Christ's flesh was not sinful flesh; his flesh was only in the form of it: and further, He took upon him the nature which was corrupt, though perfectly abstracted from the corruptions of it. If that be true, then there was no lust in Christ's flesh; consequently no temptation could arise to him from that source. That stultifies and condemns Paul, who said that he was tempted in all points as we are.

Now as Paul did not lie, it follows that these teachers and writers are all corrupters of the truth, and deceivers, having, as the Apostle says, "a

form of godliness, but denying the power thereof," for they, while professing great love and reverence for the "blessed Saviour," as they call him, at the same time rob him of his glory. For the real virtue and merit with him lies in the fact that his flesh was like the flesh of his brethren,- that is, sinful flesh in which lust dwells, insomuch that the same temptations which arise in his brethren from that source would arise in himself; but instead of yielding to these lusts and obeying them as others have done, he crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts, and therefore he could say to his disciples before he suffered, "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world," which means that all temptations to commit sin, whether from within or from without, he had withstood and overcome. If there were no lust in his flesh tempting to sin, then what credit is he entitled to for not having committed sin?

But the advocates of this false doctrine are in this instance consistent with themselves, for having assumed the position that Christ's flesh was entirely free from the least taint of sin, therefore they see no need for any atonement to be made for Christ, or any sacrifice to be offered to God on his behalf to take away sin; consequently they deny that any offering was made for him, as Matthew Henry says on page 940 of his commentary: "There is a remarkable difference in the moral qualifications of the priests. Those that were of the order of Aaron were not only mortal men, but sinful men, that had their sinful, as well as their natural infirmities. They needed to offer

up sacrifices first for their own sins, and then for the people, but our high priest who was consecrated by the word of the oath, needed only to offer up once for the people, never for himself; for he has not only an immutable consecration to his office, but an immutable sanctity in his person."

But now hearken to Paul on the opposite side of this question, saying (Heb. 7:27), "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins and then for the people's, for this he did once when he offered up himself." What they say he did not do, Paul says he did do.

Now it should be carefully noted here that the point of difference between the high priest under the law, and Christ as a priest, as Paul points out is this: that the high priest of the house of Aaron continued to offer the same sacrifices, first for his own sins, and after that for the people's, daily; but Christ as a high priest did not require to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's, daily, but this he accomplished by one sacrifice when he offered up himself. "For by one offering, he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10: 14). Therefore, according to Paul, Christ did offer a sacrifice for himself as well as for the people, insomuch that Paul positively affirms that Christ's flesh was not only sinful flesh, but that therefore Christ made a sacrifice for sins which availed first for himself, and afterwards for the people. Thus there is as great a difference between Paul and modern clergymen as there was between Paul and those who insisted in his day that it was needful to circumcise the Gentiles and to command them to keep the law. And is it any wonder if presumptuous men would oppose the apostles of Christ in their day to their faces, that the successors of those men should contradict the apostles' doctrine now?

But the Catholic clergy go a little beyond their dissenting brethren, as they call the Protestants, for some years ago the Pope called a convention of the dignitaries of the Catholic churches to meet at Rome to settle the great question of the immaculate nature of the Virgin Mary. They were pretty well agreed with their dissenting brethren, the Protestants, as to the immaculate nature of the person of Jesus, but among their own people there were differences of views about the immaculate nature of his mother, and so these distinguished delegates to Rome met in solemn conclave, and after much prayer and deliberation, they concluded that, whereas the person of Jesus Christ was immaculate and holy, and unlike the rest of mankind in that respect, therefore the person of the Virgin Mary also must needs be immaculate and holy, in order that she should give birth to an immaculate child; and therefore this decree went forth, and this oracle was inscribed among the canons of the Catholic church, and set at rest forever among their own people.

But error is a very refractory thing to manage, and is apt to stultify and contradict itself, and when men have established and laid down a principle, it then passes out of their keeping, but they are nevertheless chargeable for whatever legitimately grows out of the workings of it. The men in Corinth who denied the resurrection of the dead Paul charges with all that came of it. And so in this instance; for if they have established the fact that.Mary must needs be immaculate in order to give birth to an immaculate son, then the same necessity existed that her mother should have been immaculate, to give birth to an immaculate daughter, and this would run back to the very mother of all mankind; and if Eve was immaculate, then so would all her posterity be. All the people of the earth in the past, and all that are yet to come, would of necessity be pure and holy, so that this absurd doctrine falls into nothingness of its own weight.

The apostle John says in his letter to the Elect Lady and her children, "For many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." Now what kind of flesh is this that John refers to? What kind of flesh has mankind from the creation of the world known anything about but the ordinary kind which all men have alike, for they are all made of one blood. Now this flesh is known to be full of sin, called also lust, so that Paul says of himself, "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing," and therefore he calls it "sinful flesh," and the children of men have never known of any other kind of flesh in connection with the human family, than this kind of sinful flesh. When Paul says, "God was manifest in the flesh" and when John says that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, what could these men mean but that Christ came in precisely the same flesh as those whom he calls his brethren? Now says the apostle John (I John 4:2-3), "Hereby know ye the spirit of God; every spirit (or person) that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit (or person) that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already it is in the world."

The doctrine of antichrist appears never to have been known or heard of in the old world until Christ came in the flesh. Then the children of the