NOTE:     To better appreciate this book study the prophecies of Daniel & Revelation first.

Facts of Faith
Part A

Facts of Faith
Part B














Bible Study Guides
- William H. Grotheer


Publisher of the
"Watchman, What of the Night?" (WWN)... More Info
William H. Grotheer, Editor of Research & Publication for the ALF

- 1970s
- 1980s
- 1990s
- 2000s

SHORT STUDIES - William H. Grotheer -
"Another Comforter", study on the Holy Spirit
1976 a Letter and a Reply: - SDA General Conference warning against WWN.
Further Background Information on Zaire -General Conference pays Government to keep church there.
From a WWN letter to a reader: RE: Lakes of Fire - 2 lakes of fire.
Trademark of the name Seventh-day Adventist [Perez Court Case] - US District Court Case - GC of SDA vs.R. Perez, and others [Franchize of name "SDA" not to be used outside of denominational bounds.]


Interpretative History of the Doctrine of the Incarnation as Taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, An
- William H. Grotheer

End Time Line Re-Surveyed Parts 1 & 2 - Adventist Layman's Foundation

Excerpts - Legal Documents
- EEOC vs PPPA - Adventist Laymen's Foundation

Holy Flesh Movement 1899-1901, The - William H. Grotheer

Hour and the End is Striking at You, The - William H. Grotheer

In the Form of a Slave
- William H. Grotheer

Jerusalem In Bible Prophecy
- William H. Grotheer

Key Doctrinal Comparisons - Statements of Belief 1872-1980
- William H. Grotheer

Pope Paul VI Given Gold Medallion by Adventist Church Leader
- William H. Grotheer

Sacred Trust BETRAYED!, The - William H. Grotheer

Seal of God
 - William H. Grotheer

Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956
 - William H. Grotheer

SIGN of the END of TIME, The - William H. Grotheer

- William H. Grotheer

Times of the Gentiles Fulfilled, The - A Study in Depth of Luke 21:24
- William H. Grotheer

Elder William H. Grotheer



Song of Solomon - Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary

Ten Commandments - as Compared in the New International Version & the King James Version & the Hebrew Interlinear


Additional Various Studies --
"Saving Faith" - Dr. E. J. Waggoner
"What is Man" The Gospel in Creation - "The Gospel in Creation"
"A Convicting Jewish Witness", study on the Godhead - David L. Cooper D.D.

Bible As History - Werner Keller

Canons of the Bible, The - Raymond A. Cutts

Daniel and the Revelation - Uriah Smith

Facts of Faith - Christian Edwardson

Individuality in Religion - Alonzo T. Jones

"Is the Bible Inspired or Expired?" - J. J. Williamson

Letters to the Churches - M. L. Andreasen

Place of the Bible In Education, The - Alonzo T. Jones

Sabbath, The - M. L. Andreasen

Sanctuary Service, The
- M. L. Andreasen

So Much In Common - WCC/SDA

Spiritual Gifts. The Great Controversy, between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and his Angels - Ellen G. White

Under Which Banner? - Jon A. Vannoy


Thank you for visiting

Share your thoughts
with us





(Revised) Copyright, 1943


(Part A)


p V-- During forty years of caring for districts of churches and isolated believers, besides raising up new churches by evangelistic effort, the author of this work became greatly impressed with the need of educating the people in the fundamental doctrines of the Holy Scriptures. He has found very few who could give from the word of God an intelligent reason for even its most prominent and important truths. This spiritual poverty any minister will discover by personal investigation.

When we add to this condition the fact that during the past twenty years new errors have been stealthily introduced among Christians generally -- errors which undermine the very foundations of Bible truth and Christianity -- it becomes evident that even professing Christians are unprepared for the crises they will be obliged to meet in the near future.

For several years many ministers and Bible students have urged that the author prepare the manuscript for this book, embodying numerous new quotations and references to works of great value. Limitations of space have permitted inclusion of only the choicest and most important elections from authentic historical and doctrinal works.


p VII -- Contents - listed on left.

p 8 -- Blank


p 9 -- Could it be thought possible that an all-wise Creator would bring so many millions of people into existence, as the inhabitants of this earth, and give them no information as to why they are here, or what His will is concerning them? No, that would be unreasonable. Just as surely as there is a judgment day coming, on which we all shall be called to account our conduct, so surely He must have given us an infallible rule of life. But what is this "infallible rule"? The Roman Catholics say it is "The Church, with its traditions." But the Church has changed so greatly since its origin that if the apostles could arise from the dead they would not recognize it as the church they established. As for "tradition," it is like a story that grows and changes as it travels. No government would be satisfied with oral laws. In so important a matter as our eternal happiness we need a rule that is more stable and unchangeable, and this we have in God's infallible word, the Bible.


The Bible is not the product of man's thought and planning. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1: 21. (Compare Isaiah 55: 8, 9; 2 Corinthians 3: 5.)

Peter says: "The Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake," and David himself declares: "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me. " Acts 1: 16; 2 Samuel 23: 2. Of Jeremiah we read: " Then the Lord put forth His hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put My words in thy mouth." Jeremiah 1: 9. Thus the whole Bible is God's word, spoken through human instrumentality, for "God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3: 21), and His hand guided them while they wrote. "All this,"

p 10 -- said David, "the Lord made me understand in writing by His hand upon me." 1I Chronicles 28:19. And so, the prophets, after writing of Christ's coming, were "searching" their own writings to find out "what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 1 Peter 1: 11.

We have now presented the testimony of the Bible itself to the fact that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3: 16. No consistent person can, therefore, receive one portion of it while he rejects another. Jesus says: "The Scripture cannot be broken." John 10: 35. He, the author of the Scriptures, displayed such implicit confidence in them, that even the devil did not dare to question their authority, when Christ faced him with the words: "It is written." Matthew 4: 4, 7, 10. Yes, "devils also believe, and tremble" (James 2: 19), for they know the Bible is true, while critics today doubt and ridicule (Jude 10). What has caused such terrible unbelief among men? We shall now briefly review the causes and the history of modern "Higher Criticism."


After the Church had fallen from its apostolic purity of life and doctrine, it found that, where the Bible was read by the common people, they lost faith in the Church and opposed her worship as a species of idolatry. This was particularly true of the Waldenses, who had retained the Bible in their native language hundreds of years before the Reformation, and had copied and spread its pages over Catholic Christendom, wherever their missionaries traveled. It was natural, therefore, that the Roman church, instead of supplying the common people with the Scriptures in their native tongue, should oppose this. Cardinal Merry del Val says that on account of the activity of the Waldenses, and later of the Protestants, in spreading the Scriptures in the native language of the people, "the Pontiffs and the Councils were obliged on more than one occasion to control and

p 11 -- sometimes even forbid the use of the Bible in the vernacular."

He also says: "Those who would put the Scriptures indiscriminately into the hands of the people are the believers always in private interpretation -- a fallacy both absurd in itself and pregnant with disastrous consequences. These counterfeit champions of the inspired book hold the Bible to be the sole source of Divine Revelation and cover with abuse and trite sarcasm the Catholic and Roman Church."-" Index of Prohibited Books, revised and published by order of His Holiness Pope Pius XI," "Foreword" by Cardinal Merry del Val, pp. x, xi. Vatican Polyglot Press, 1930.

These plain words from such an authentic source need no comment. Ever since the first " Index of Prohibited Books " was issued by Pope Paul IV, in 1599, the Bible has had a prominent place in these lists of forbidden books. And, before the invention of printing, it was comparatively easy for the Roman church to control what the people should, or should not, read; but shortly before the Reformation started, the Lord prepared the way for its rapid progress by the discovery of the art of printing. The name of Laurence Coster, of Holland, is often mentioned in connection with the story of the first production in Europe, in 1423, of movable type. In 1450 to 1455 John Gutenberg printed the Latin Bible at Mentz (Mainz), Germany. He endeavored for a time to keep his invention a secret, but Samuel Smiles relates:

"In the meanwhile, the printing establishments of Gutenberg and Schoeffer were for a time broken up by the sack and plunder of Mentz by the Archbishop Adolphus in 1462, when, their workmen becoming dispersed, and being no longer bound to secrecy, they shortly after carried with them the invention of the new art into nearly every country in Europe." -- " The Huguenots," p. 7. London: John Murray, 1868.

There being so few books to print, and there being a ready sale for Bibles, the printers risked all hazards from the opposition of the Church, and printed Bibles in Latin, Italian, Bohemian, Dutch, French, Spanish, and German. While these were so ex-

p 12 -- pensive that only the wealthy could afford to buy them, and their language was not adapted to the minds of the common people, yet they "seriously alarmed the Church; and in 1486 the Archbishop of Mentz placed the printers of that city, which had been the cradle of the printing-press, under strict censorship. Twenty-five years later, Pope Alexander VI issued a bull prohibiting the printers of Cologne, Mentz, Treves, and Magdeburg, from publishing any books without the express license of their archbishops. Although these measures were directed against the printing of religious works generally, they were more particularly directed against the publication of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue." -- Id., p. 8.


The time had now come for the light to shine, and God's word could no longer be kept from the people. Prophecy states that in spite of captivity, fire, and sword, "they shall be holpen with a little help." Daniel 11: 33, 34. But the people had been kept in darkness so long that they could not endure the glaring light of all the Bible truths at once. They had to come gradually, and the hour had struck for the Reformation to begin.

In preparing for the Reformation, the Lord had worked in marvelous ways to provide protection for the Reformers. The night before Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses on the door of the castle church at Wittenberg, the Elector Frederick of Saxony had a remarkable dream. In relating it to Duke John the next morning he said:

"' I must tell you a dream which I had last night.... For I dreamed it thrice, and each time with new circumstances. . . . I fell asleep, . . . I then awoke. . . . I prayed . . . God to guide me, my counsels, and my people according to truth. I again fell asleep, and then dreamed that Almighty God sent me a monk. . . . All the saints accompanied him by order of God, in order to bear testimony before me, and to declare that he did not come to contrive any plot. . . . They asked me to have the goodness graciously to permit him to write something on the

p 13 -- door of the church of the Castle of Wittenberg. This I granted through my chancellor. Thereupon the monk went to the and began to write in such large characters that I could the writing at Schweinitz. The pen which he used was so large that its end reached as far as Rome, where it pierced the ears of a lion that was crouching there, and caused the triple crown upon the head of the Pope to shake. All the cardinals and princes, running hastily up, tried to prevent it from falling. . . .I awoke, . . . it was only a dream. [Again he fell asleep.] TOP

"'Then I dreamed that all the princes of the Empire, and we among them, hastened to Rome, and strove, one after another, to break the pen; but the more we tried the stiffer it became, sounding as if it had been made of iron. We at length desisted. . . .Suddenly I heard a loud noise -- a large number of other pens had sprung out of the long pen of the monk. I awoke a third time: it was daylight.' . . .

"So passed the morning of the 31st October, 1517, in the royal castle of Schweinitz. . . . The elector has hardly made an end of telling his dream when the monk comes with the hammer to interpret it." -- "History of Protestantism," J. A. Wylie, -- L. L..D., Vol. I, pp. 263-266.

One can hardly wonder that the Elector of Saxony became Luther's protector during his long struggle with the Papacy. The greatest work that was accomplished by these "pens" of the Reformation was the translation of the Bible into the language of the common people. True, there had been some attempts made before this time to produce the Scriptures in the vernacular, but without much success, as the language was almost unintelligible to the common people, and the price prohibitive.

After Martin Luther had spent much time in the homes and company of the people that he might acquire their language, he, with his co-workers, translated the Bible into a language that, while it was dignified and beautiful, was so natural and easy to be understood by the ordinary mind that it made the Bible at once "the people's book." The New Testament was translated

p 14 -- in 1521, and fifty-eight editions of it were printed between 1522 and 1533: seventeen editions at Wittenberg, thirteen at Augsburg, twelve at Basel, one at Erfurt, one at Grimma, one at Leipzig, and thirteen at Strassburg. The Old Testament was first printed in four parts, 1523 to 1533, and finally the entire Bible was published in one volume in 1534.

In 1522, Jacques Lefevre translated the New Testament into French, and Collin, at Meaux, printed it in 1524. In 1525, William Tyndale translated the New Testament into English. All these New Testaments were translated from the original Greek, and not from the imperfect Latin Vulgate, used by the papal church.

Printing presses were kept busy printing the Scriptures, while colporteurs and booksellers sold them to the eager public. The effect was tremendous.

"Every honest intellect was at once struck with the strange discrepancy between the teaching of the Sacred Volume and that of the church of Rome." -- " Historical Studies, " Eugene Lawrence, p. 255. New York: Harper Brothers., 1876. TOP

In the Book of God there were found no purgatory, no infallible pope, no masses for the dead, no sale of indulgences, no relics working miracles, no prayers for the dead, no worship of the Virgin Mary or of saints! But there the people found a loving Saviour with open arms welcoming the poorest and vilest of sinners to come and receive forgiveness full and free. Love filled their hearts and broke the shackles of sin and superstition. Profanity, coarse jests, drunkenness, vice, and disorder disappeared. The blessed Book was read by young and old, and became the talk in home and shop, while the Church with its Latin mass lost its attraction.


Rome was awake to the inevitable result of allowing the common people to read the Bible, and the Vicar of Croydon declared in a speech at St. Paul's Cross, London: "We must destroy the printing press, or it will destroy us." -- " The Printing Press and the Gospel," by E. R. Palmer, p. 24. The papal machinery was therefore set in motion for the destruction of the Bible.

" There now began a remarkable contest between the Romish Church and the Bible -- between the printers and the popes. . . .

"To the Bible the popes at once declared a deathless hostility. To read the Scriptures was in their eyes the grossest of crimes. . . . The Inquisition was invested with new terrors, and was forced upon France and Holland by papal armies. The Jesuits were everywhere distinguished by their hatred for the Bible. In the Netherlands they led the persecutions of Alva and Philip II; they rejoiced with a dreadful joy when Antwerp, Bruges, and Ghent, the fairest cities of the workingmen, were reduced to pauperism and ruin by the Spanish arms; for the Bible had perished with its defenders. . .

." To burn Bibles was the favorite employment of zealous Catholics. Wherever they were found the heretical volumes were destroyed by active Inquisitors, and thousands of Bibles and Testaments perished in every part of France." -- " Historical Studies," Eugene Lawrence, pp. 254-257.

In Spain, not only were the common people forbidden to read the Bible, but also university professors were forbidden by the "Supreme Council" of the Inquisition to possess their valuable Bible manuscripts.

"The council, in consequence, decreed that those theologians in the university who had studied the original languages, should be obliged, as well as other persons, to give up their Hebrew and Greek Bibles to the comrnissaries of the holy office, on pain of and excommunication." -- " History of the Inquisition of Spain," D. J. A. Llorente, Secretary of the Inquisition, p. 105. London, 1827.

"In 1490, Torquemada [the Inquisitor-General] caused many Hebrew Bibles and more than six thousand volumes to be burnt in an Auto da fe at Salamanca." -- " Literary Policy of the Church of Rome," Joseph Mendham, M. A., p. 97. London, 1830.

How many thousands of invaluable manuscripts thus perished in the flames of the Inquisition, eternity alone will reveal. TOP

p 16 -- It is exceedingly difficult for a Protestant in our days to fathom the extent of this fear of and enmity against the Bible, manifested by the Roman church. With her it was actually a life or death struggle! A person must read the history of the Inquisition, and examine the Roman Indexes of Forbidden Books, to understand her viewpoint. Inquisitor General Perez del Prado gave expression to her feelings and her bitter lament when he declared in horror "'that some individuals had carried their audacity to the execrable extremity of demanding permission to read the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, without fearing to encounter mortal poison therein."' -- " History of the Inquisition of Spain," D. Juan Antonio Llorente, p. 111.

The funeral piles were lit all over Europe. Samuel Smiles says of France:

"Bibles and New Testaments were seized wherever found, and burnt; but more Bibles and Testaments seemed to rise, as if by magic, from their ashes. The printers who were convicted of printing Bibles were next seized and burnt. The Bourgeois de Paris [a Roman Catholic paper] gives a detailed account of the human sacrifices offered up to ignorance and intolerance in that city during the six months ending June, 1534, from which it appears that twenty men and one woman were burnt alive. . . .In the beginning of the following year, the Sorbonne obtained from the king an ordinance, which was promulgated on the 26th of February, 1535, for the suppression of printing! " -- " The Huguenots," Samuel Smiles, pp. 20, 21, and first footnote.

"Further attempts continued to be made by Rome to check the progress of printing. In 1599 [1559] Pope Paul IV issued the first Index Expurgatorius, containing a list of the books expressly prohibited by the Church. It included all Bibles printed in modern languages, of which forty-eight editions were enumerated; while sixty-one printers were put under a general ban." - Id., p. 23.

"Paul IV, in 1559, put it [Sully's name] in the first papal Index Expurgatorium." -- " History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages," Henry Charles Lea, Vol. III, p. 587.

p 17 -- "The first Roman 'Index of Prohibited Books' (Index librorum prohibitorum), published in 1559 under Paul IV, was very severe and was therefore mitigated under that pontiff by decree of the Holy Office of 14 June of the same year. -- "Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 722, art. "Index."

Persecution raged more or less all over Europe: " In 1545, the massacre of the Vaudois of Province was perpetrated"; the 24th of August, 1572, the St. Bartholomew Massacre commenced, and continued until between 70,000 and 100,000 innocent and unsuspecting persons were murdered in cold blood for being Protestants. The massacre was secretly planned by the leaders of the Roman church.

"Sully says 70,000 were slain, though other writers estimate the victims at 100,000." -- "The Huguenots," Samuel Smiles, pp. 71, 72.

"Catherine de Medicis wrote in triumph to Alva, to Philip II, and to the Pope. . . . Rome was thrown into a delirium of joy at the news. The cannon were fired at St. Angelo; Gregory XIII and his cardinals went in procession from sanctuary to sanctuary to give God thanks for the massacre. The subject was ordered to be painted, and a medal was struck, with the Pope's image on one side, and the destroying angel on the other immolating the Huguenots. " -- Id., 71, 72.


Finally, however, the papal church discovered that her opposition to the Bible only betrayed the sad fact that, instead of being the divinely instituted church of the Bible, she and the Scriptures were deadly enemies, and that her open fight was furnishing the world with the clearest evidences to justify the Reformation. Her relentless persecution was making martyrs, but not loyal Catholics. She must halt her course and forge new weapons against Protestantism, if she ever hoped to win the battle. But what were these weapons to be? These we shall consider in the next two chapters. TOP



p 18 -- The Roman church had discovered that the root of her troubles lay in the reading of the Bible by the laity, and had opposed it with all the power at her command. But she finally realized that her open war on the Scriptures had aroused suspicion that her life and doctrines were out of harmony with God's word, and could not endure the light of an open Bible.

To allay such feelings she must make it appear that she was not opposed to the Scriptures, but only to the "erroneous Protestant Bible." But how could such an impression be made, when that Bible was a faithful translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts, in which the Scriptures were originally written? Then, too, the Protestants had, at that time, some of the most able Hebrew and Greek scholars in all Christendom.

Providence had brought the Reformers in contact with some of the best sources of Bible manuscripts: (1) When the Turks captured Constantinople in 1453, many of the Greek scholars fled to the West, bringing with them their valuable manuscripts from the East where Christianity originated, and then Greek and Hebrew learning revived in the West.* (2) With this influx from the East came also the Syrian Bible, used by the early church at Antioch in Syria (Acts 11: 26), which was translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts long before the Massoretic (O.T.) text, and is the oldest known Bible manuscript (unless it should be the one lately discovered by Chester Beatty) # (3) During their severe persecutions the Waldenses came into contact with the Reformers at Geneva, and thus their

* -- See " History of the English Bible," by W. F. Moulton, PP. 34-36.

# -- Copies of the Syriac Bible were later found among the Syrian Christians at Malabar, South India with all the earmarks of the old Syrian manuscripts. See "The Old Documents and the New Bible, " by J. P. Smyth, pp. 166, 167; "Indian Church History," by Thomas Yates, p. 167; "Christian Researches in Asia," by Claudius Buchannan, pp. 80, 143.

p 19 -- Bible, which had been preserved in its apostolic purity, was brought to the Reformers.*

Translations direct from the original languages in which the Holy Scriptures were written, and comparisons with ancient sources, by en of high scholarly ability and sterling integrity, gave the Protestants a perfectly reliable Bible.* In spite of these plain facts, the Catholic authorities had to do something to turn the minds of their people away from the Protestant Bible, so widely distributed. They therefore advanced the claim that Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation was more correct than any copy we now have of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. We shall now examine this claim. TOP


At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), in the fourth session, the second Decree, in 1546, they decided that the Latin Vulgate should be the standard Bible for the Roman church. But then they discovered a curious fact, that during the 1050 years from the time Jerome brought out his Latin Vulgate Bible in 405 A. D. , until John Gutenberg printed it in 1455, it had been copied so many times, mostly by monks, and so many errors had crept in, that no one knew just what was the actual rendering of the original Vulgate. The learned Roman Catholic professor, Dr. Johann Jahn says of it:

"The universal admission of this version throughout the vast extent of the Latin church multiplied the copies of it, in the transcription of which it became corrupted with many errors. . . . Cardinal Nicholas, about the middle of the twelfth century, found 'tot exemplaria quot codices' (as many copies as

* -- An illustration of how some learned Roman Catholics have estimated the Protestant Greek New Testament can be seen when we read of the Catholic legislation on forbidden books. A commentator says:

"In diocesan seminaries the textbook prescribed in Greek was very often some portion of the original text of the New Testament, and Protestant editions were selected, as they contained a more ample vocabulary, and, perhaps, better grammatical annotations than Catholic editions. Such an act would appear quite pardonable and excusable, as the text was entire and pure. . . . But according to the present rule . . . bishops have no power to select such works."-"A Commentary on the Present Index Legislation," Rev. T. Hurley, D. D., p. 70. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1908.

With their feelings against Protestant books, such permits could not have been given, unless the superiority of the book demanded it.

p 20 -- manuscripts)." -- "Introduction to the Old Testament," Sec. 62, 63. (Quoted in "History of Romanism," Dr. John Dowling, ed. of 1871, p. 486.)

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the Latin Vulgate

"From an early day the text of the Vulgate began to suffer corruptions, mostly through the copyists who introduced familiar readings of the Old Latin or inserted the marginal glosses of MSS. which they were transcribing." -- Vol. XV, p. 370, art. Versions," " The Vulgate."

The Council of Trent having made Jerome's Latin "Vulgate the standard text," * it must now determine which of the hundreds of copies (all differing) was the correct "Vulgate." A commission was therefore appointed to gather materials so as to "restore St. Jerome's text," but its members were "not to amend it by any new translations of their own from the original Hebrew and Greek ." # ) They "were merely to collect manuscripts and prepare the evidence for and against certain readings in the text, after which the Pope himself, by reason not of his scholarship, but of his gift of infallibility, decided straight off which were the genuine words!" -- " The Old Documents and the New Bible," J. Paterson Smyth, B.D., LL.D., pp. 174, 175. London and New York: 1907.

Pope Sixtus V undertook this work of revision, and to make sure of its being correct, he read the proofs himself. This edition was printed at Rome in 1590, accompanied by a bull forbidding the least alteration in this infallible text. "But alas! . . . The book was full of mistakes. The scholarship of Sixtus was by no means great, and his infallibility somehow failed to make up for this defect."-- Id., p. 175. TOP

The Catholic Encyclopedia comments:

"But Sixtus V, though unskilled in this branch of criticism, had introduced alterations of his own, all for the worse. . . . His immediate successors at once proceeded to remove the blunders and call in the defective impression." -- Vol. II, p. 412.

* -- See Cardinal Gasquet's article in the Forum for August, 1926, p. 203.

# -- "History of the Council of Trent," T. A. Buckley, Part II, chap. 16, p. 127.

p 21 --All available copies of the Bible of Pope Sixtus were called in and burnt as, were the heretics. Pope Clement VIII, in 1592, ordered a better edition to be made, accompanying it with a similar bull. Dr. James, keeper of the Bodleian Library at Oxford, where one of Pope Sixtus's Bibles remained, compared it with that of Pope Clement, and found two thousand glaring variations in them. He published his findings in a book called: "Bellum Papale, i.e. the Papal War." ("History of Romanism," Dr. J. Dowling, p. 487. New York: 1871.)

Dr. Thomas James, in the following statement, gives valuable information on the Vulgate Bible:

"Isidorus Clarius hath noted eight thousand places erroneous in the vulgar bible, the divines of Louvaine, and Joannes Benedictus have observed above twice as many differences, from the original Hebrew and Greek fountains. If Paulus V., the now pope, will take the pains to reform these also; in my judgment, he shall do a work very acceptable unto the whole Christian world, both Protestant and papist." -- "A Treatise of the Corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers," p. 208. London: 1843.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the latest revision of the Vulgate by Pope Clement:

"This revision is now the officially recognized version of the Latin Rite and contains the only authorized text of the Vulgate. That it has numerous defects has never been denied." -- Vol. XV, p.370.

That the Roman church is not satisfied with the present Vulgate text is seen by the fact that in 1907 Pope Pius X, according to the Forum, commissioned H. E. Francis Aidan Cardinal Gasquet, with his Benedictine Order, to reproduce the true Latin text of St. Jerome by a new revision. Cardinal Gasquet says of the former attempt made by Pope Clement VIII, in 1592:

"The commission labored for some forty years, and strange to say, many of the changes proposed by them were never inserted in the final revision. From the notes of this commission it may be safely said that had they been accepted we should

p 22 -- have had a much better critical text than we now possess." -- "Forum," August, 1926, p.203. TOP

The Catholic Encyclopedia points out a fact often overlooked by scholars today, that "the Hebrew text used by St. Jerome was comparatively late, being practically that of the Masoretes. For this reason his version, for textual criticism, has less value than the Peshito and the Septuagint. As a translation it holds a place between these two." -- Vol. XV, p. 370.

E. S. Buchanan, M. A., B. Sc., says of Jerome's translation:

"Jerome, to the great loss of posterity, did not dig deep into the history of the text. He did not revise on the Latin and Greek texts of the second century; but solely on the Greek text of the fourth century, and that was a text too late and too limited in range and attestation on which to base an enduring fabric. . . .

He was not bidden to search for the earliest MSS. He was not bidden to bring together the versions of the East and the West. He was not bidden to make inquiry for the lost autographs with a view to the reconstruction of the Apostolic text. He was only bidden to prepare a suitable text for ecclesiastical usage. And this he has done; but it is painful to think of all he left undone, that with his position of vantage he might have done." -- "The Records Unrolled," p. 20. London: John Ouseley, Ltd.

From these considerations we see, that, even if the original text of Jerome's translation could be reconstructed, it would not be of as much textual value as is sometimes supposed. We are not depreciating the Catholic Bible. We wish Catholics would read it more than they do. All we are here aiming at is this: When leading Catholic authorities admit that their Bible is of so little value as a "Standard Text," then why do they so relentlessly oppose the circulation of the authorized Protestant Bible, which is translated from the best original sources? Henry Guppy, M. A., D. Ph. et Litt., Librarian of the John Rylands Library, England, says:

"The Church of Rome has always bitterly opposed any attempt to circulate the Bible in the language of the people, and license to read the Scriptures, even when

p 23 -- truly and catholicly translated, was but sparingly granted.

"In spite, however, of the denunciations uttered by the Roman Catholic priests against what they were pleased to term the incorrect and untruthful translations which were in circulation, the Bible continued to be read by increasing numbers of people. Indeed, the attempts to suppress it created a prejudice against the Roman Catholic Church; and, as time wore on, it was felt by many Catholics that something more must be done than a mere denunciation of the corrupt translations in the direction of providing a new version which the Roman Church could warrant to be authentic and genuine." -- "A Brief Sketch of History of the Translation of the Bible," p. 54. London: University Press, 1926. TOP

After the Jesuits had been expelled from England in 1579, they settled at Rheims, France, where they translated the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate into English. This was printed in 1582. Later they moved to Douay, where they printed the Old Testament in 1609. We have seen that the learned Catholic doctors, Johann Jahn and Isidor Clarius, acknowledged that there were 8,000 errors in the Vulgate Bible, and as a stream cannot be expected to rise higher than its fountain, we must conclude that the errors are carried over into the Douay Version. We shall take the space to mention only two of them:

1. -- The Douay Bible uses the word "adore" where the Protestant Bible has "worship." (Compare Matthew 4: 10 in both Bibles.) While the Protestant Bible says that Jacob " worshiped, leaning upon the top of his staff," the Douay Version says that he "adored the top of his rod." Hebrews 11: 21. "The Approved Holy Catholic Bible," with "Annotations by the Rev. Dr. Challoner," and approved by Pius V1, says: "Jacob . . . worshiped the top,of his rod." Thus Catholics have proof for worshiping relics.

2. -- Our Protestant Bible more correctly translates 2 Timothy 3: 16 to read, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," but the Douay Version reads: "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable." As can be readily seen, this latter rendering gives

p 24 --no assurance that the Bible is inspired, but simply makes the superfluous statement that what is inspired is profitable. And so it is left with the church to say what is inspired. *

In full view of all the foregoing facts, how can Roman Catholic authors shut their eyes to it all, and brazenly declare that their church alone has the true and correct Bible? They say: "She alone possesses the true Bible and the whole Bible, and the copies of the Scriptures existing outside of her pale, are partly incorrect and partly defective.

"This Bible was the celebrated Vulgate, the official text in the Catholic Church, the value of which all scholars admit to be simply inestimable. . . . The Council of Trent in 1546 issued a decree, stamping it as the only recognized and authoritative Version allowed to Catholics. . . . It was revised under Pope Sixtus V in 1590, and again under Pope Clement VIII in 1593, who is responsible for the present standard text. It is from the Vulgate that our English Douai Version comes." -- "Where 'We Got the Bible," Right Rev. Henry G. Graham, pp. 7, 16, 17. London: Eighth Impression, 1936. TOP

Do these men actually believe that Protestants have no access to the facts of history, but are dependent on such misstatements! Or are they vainly hoping that the public will have no opportunity to read the Protestant side of the story?

The interesting part of it all is the fact that the Catholic Church, after proclaiming so loudly since 1546 that the Latin Vulgate is "the only recognized and authoritative version," and crying out against the Protestant Bibles (translated from the original Hebrew and Greek text) as " heretical," is herself at last driven, by facts long known within her own circle, to translate the Bible "from the original text," Hebrew and Greek. What a complete somersault! This late Catholic version is called "The Westminster Version" (printed by Longmans, Green and Co., London). But, as the work is intrusted mostly to the Jesuits, we can expect very little change from their former Douay Version, except that it will be more carefully

* -- The new Catholic version Of 1941 renders it: "All Scripture is inspired by God.'

p 25 -- written to conform to the Roman viewpoint (judging from the portions that have already been published). For instance, the correct note under Revelation 13: 18 is entirely changed, but Revelation 22: 14 reads the same as in the Douay Version: "Blessed are they that wash their robes." In our Authorized Protestant Version (King James') it reads: "Blessed are they that do His commandments."

Inspired by Revelation 22: 14, P. P. Bliss, musician assisting D. L. Moody, wrote the hymn:

"Hear the words our Saviur hath spoken,
Words of life unfailing and true:
Careless one, prayerless one, hear and remember,
Jesus says, 'Blessed are they that do.'
Blessed are they that do His commandments,
Blessed, blessed, blessed are they."

Later Mr. Bliss went to Rome, where he learned that "Blessed are they that wash their robes," "must be the correct" rendering. And "during his last week in Rome," he told his brother-in-law that he was sorry he had written that hymn. He declared: " I see so clearly its contradiction of the gospel that I have no liberty in singing it." Then he wrote the hymn: "Free from the law, oh, happy condition." -- " Memories of Philip P. Bliss," D. W. Whittle, pp. 131, 132. New York: A. S. Barnes and Co., 1877. It is deplorable that this good Christian man should get such impressions at Rome. But, sad to say, P. P. Bliss is not the only beloved Protestant that has been in touch with Rome, and lost his desire and liberty to teach the good old truths of the Protestant Bible.TOP

Some follow the Roman Catholic translation of Revelation 22: 14, because the Vatican possesses one of the three oldest Bible manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus). But that manuscript ends with Hebrews 9: 14, so that it could not give Catholics the proper rendering of Revelation 22: 14. *

* -- For further light on this point see "A Brief Sketch of the History of the Translation of the Bible, " H. Guppy, p. 7, and "The Records Unrolled" by H. S. Buchanan, p. 50.



p 26 -- The second, and more effective, weapon Rome used against the Reformation was "higher criticism," in an effort to undermine the very foundation of Protestantism.

The strongest appeal of the Roman Catholic Church lies in its claim to " apostolic succession," that is, that its popes descended in direct line from the apostles. Protestants, originating in the sixteenth century, have no such appeal. Their strong argument lies in their exact conformity with the Bible in faith and morals. "The Bible, and the Bible only" is their battle cry. The Bible reveals man's utter inability to attain justification by his own works, and offers it as a "free gift," obtained by faith in the merits of Jesus Christ alone. The Bible presents good works only as the natural fruit of genuine faith. On this foundation was Protestantism built. Before going further we shall let Catholics and Protestants state their foundations.


"Like two sacred rivers flowing from paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God, the precious gems of revealed truths. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, Tradition is to us more clear and safe." -- "Catholic Belief," Joseph Faa di Bruno, D.D., p. 33. New York: Benziger Brothers., 1912.

"But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and the unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, II), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses, . . . we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. . . .

p 27 -- The Bible could not be left to interpret itself." Therefore Catholics declare the "Church to be its acknowledged interpreter." And under the heading: "The Catholic Doctrine Touching the Church as the Rule of Faith, " we read: " Now the teaching Church is the Apostolic body continuing to the end of time." But of the teachers of this body, they say: " Unless they be united with the Vicar of Christ [the Pope], it is futile to appeal to the episcopate in general as the rule of faith." They then sum up their rule of faith thus: "'Hence we must stand rather by the decisions which the pope judicially pronounces than by the opinions of men, however learned they may be in Holy Scripture.'" -- "Catholic Encyclopedia," Vol. V, pp. 766-768, art. " Faith, Rule of." The teaching Church, with the pope at its head, is therefore the Catholic "rule of faith."TOP

Thus we see that the Roman Catholic Church places tradition above the Bible as more safe, and substitutes the pope for the Holy Spirit as the guide. Christ promised His followers: "Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth." "He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance." John 16: 13; 14: 26. That these promises are not confined to the leaders of the church, is made plain by John, who applies them to all Christians: "But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, . . . ye shall abide in Him." 1 John 2:27. In answer to these Scriptures the Catholic writers say: " Nor can it be said that being a divinely inspired book, its prime Author, the Holy Ghost, will guide the reader to the right meaning." -- " Things Catholics Are Asked About," M. J. Scott, S. J., p. 119. New York: 1927.


Protestants have announced as their rule of faith: "The Bible, and the Bible only," with the Holy Spirit as its sole interpreter. William Chillingworth, M. A., says:

"The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants! . . .

p 28 -- I for my part, after a long and (as I verily believe and hope) impartial search of 'the true way to eternal happiness,' do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only. I see plainly and with my own eyes, that there are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the church of one age against the church of another age. . . . In a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon." "The Religion of Protestants," William Chillingworth, M. A., p. 463. London:1866.

"'The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants!' Nor is it of any account in the estimation of the genuine Protestant, how early a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the Bible. . . .

"He who receives a single doctrine upon the mere authority of tradition, let him be called by what name he will, by so doing, steps down from the Protestant rock, passes over the line which separates Protestantism from Popery, and can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism, upon the same authority." -- " History of Romanism," John Dowling, D. D., pp. 67,68. New York: 1871. TOP

This childlike faith in the Bible as God's infallible word carried the Reformers above all opposition, and swept over Europe with an irresistible force which threatened to engulf the old, decaying structure of the Roman church. This unabated force could be broken only by robbing Protestants of their implicit faith in the Bible. They would then lose their power as surely as did Samson, when he was shorn of his locks. (Judges 16: 19, 20.)


Richard Simon, a Roman Catholic priest, called the "Father of Higher Criticism," in 1678 wrote "A Critical History of the Old Testament" in three books, laying down the rules for a

p 29 -- more exact translation. He advanced the new theory that only the ordinances and commands of the books of Moses were written by him, while the historical parts were the product of various other writers. Simon's declared purpose was to show that the Protestants had no assured principle for their religion. (See edition of 1782.) "This work led to a very extended controversy and the first edition was suppressed." * So vigorous was the opposition of the learned, that his theory lay dormant for seventy-five years. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

" A French priest, Richard Simon (1638-1712), was the first who subjected the general questions concerning the Bible to a treatment which was at once comprehensive in scope and scientific in method. Simon is the forerunner of modern Biblical criticism. . . . A reaction against the rigid view of the Bible [was one of] the factors which produced Simon's first great work, the 'Histoire critique du Vieux Testament' ['Critical History of the Old Testament'] which was published in 1678. . . . It entitles him to be called the father of Biblical criticism." -- Vol. IV, p. 492.

"In 1753 Jean Astruc, a French Catholic physician of considerable note, published a little book, 'Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont il parait que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genese (Conjectures on the original records from which it appears that Moses composed the book of Genesis).'" -- Id., same page. (See also New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I, p. 336, art, "Jean Astruc.")

His book is rightly named, for in it he conjectured that the book of Genesis must have been written by two different authors, because the Creator is there called " God " (" Elohim") in some places, and "Lord" ("Jehovah") in other places. Such a line of reasoning would be as inconsistent as to claim that Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, for instance, must have been written by two different apostles, because our Saviour is there called "Jesus" in some places, and "Christ" in others. But what about the places where He is called "Jesus Christ"? And so in Genesis.

* -- Catalogue of R. D. Dickinson, 1935, No. 462, p. 10, book No. 167.

p 30 -- Who wrote the five passages where He is called "Lord God" ("Jehovah Elohim")? In 1792, Dr. Alexander Geddes, a Roman Catholic priest of Scottish origin, carried this "fragmentary hypothesis" still further. Absurd as this theory was, the Protestants fell into the trap set for them, and Germany, the seat of the Reformation, became the seat of this destructive "higher criticism." Today this inconsistent criticism of the Bible has invaded the seminaries, colleges, and universities of practically all Protestant denominations, and few ministers are free from its blighting influence. Edwin Cone Bissell, Professor in McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, carried out this "fragmentary" theory in his book, "Genesis Printed in Colors, Showing the Original Sources from Which It Is Supposed to Have Been Compiled" (Hartford, 1892), displaying the seven colors of the rainbow in shorter or longer fragments, each representing a different author or editor.TOP

Harold Bolce spent two years investigating American colleges from Maine to California, and wrote his astounding findings in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, May to August, 1909. Here are a few expressions culled from his report:

"In hundreds of classrooms it is being taught daily that the Decalogue is no more sacred than a syllabus; that the home as an institution is doomed; that there are no absolute evils; that immorality is simply an act in contravention of society's accepted standards; . . . and that the daring who defy the code [the moral law] do not offend any Deity, but simply arouse the venom of the majority -- the majority that has not yet grasped the new idea; . . . and that the highest ethical life consists at all times in the breaking of rules which have grown too narrow for the actual case. . . .

"There can be and are holier alliances without the marriage bond than within it. . . . Anything tolerated by the world in general is right. . . . The notion, . . . that there is anything fundamentally correct implies the existence of a standard outside and above usage, and no such standard exists." -- pp. 665, 666, 674,675, 676.

p 31 -- Can anyone wonder at what Dr. Charles Jefferson declares? He says:

A theological student at the end of the first year of his seminary course is the most demoralized individual to be found on this earth. His early conception of the Bible has been torn down all the way to the cellar, and he is obliged to build up a new conception from the foundations." -- " Things Fundamental," pp. 120, 121.

In regard to the inevitable result of teaching the rising generation such revolutionary ideas, and of undermining completely their moral standards, and their belief in God, the editor of the Cosmopolitan Magazine says in a note to Mr. Bolce's articles:

"These are some of the revolutionary and sensational teachings submitted with academic warrant to the minds of hundreds of thousands of students in the United States. It is time that the public realized what is being taught to the youth of this country.

' The social question of to-day,' said Disraeli, 'is only a zephyr which rustles the leaves, but will soon become a hurricane.' It is a dull ear that cannot hear the mutterings of the coming storm." -- " Cosmopolitan Magazine, " May, 1909, p. 665.

The Bible declares: "They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. " " There is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood." Hosea 8: 7; 4:1, 2. (Compare 2 Timothy 3: 1-5.) Yes, the saying is true, that "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6: 7. TOP

The Christian Register for June 18, 1891, page 389, commenting favorably on the work of higher criticism, says:

"Thomas Paine, though stigmatized and set aside as an infidel, finds reincarnation in the modern scientific Biblical critic. . . . He lived too far in advance of his age. The spirit of modern scientific criticism had not yet come. . . . And now it is interesting to find that, in a different spirit and with different tools, and bound by certain traditions, . . . the professors in our orthodox seminaries are doing again the work which Paine did."

p 32 -- As long as these men domineered over the Old Testament, most of the Christian teachers remained silent. But the work did not stop there. The Lutheran Pastor Storjohan of Oslo, Norway, says of Wellhausen:

"After they have permitted him to domineer over the Old Testament for more than twenty-five years, it is not more than reasonable, and a just punishment, that he in his presumption has now undertaken his war on the Gospels." -- " Bibelen paa Pinebaenk [The Bible on the Inquisitorial Rack]," p. 7. Christiania, 1907.

In closing let us briefly point out the road which higher criticism had to travel, after it had taken the first step: When critics had denied the historicity of the books of Moses (the Pentateuch), they discovered that the Psalms referred to them as acknowledged history. (Psalms 33: 6, 9; 29: 10; 77: 20; 103: 7; 105: 6-45; 106: 7-33.) To be consistent, the Psalms had to be rejected. They also found that the books of Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Nehemiah, and the prophets acknowledged the Pentateuch as the inspired work of Moses (Joshua 23: 6; 1 Kings 2: 3; 2 Chronicles 35: 6; Nehemiah 8: 1, 8; Daniel 9: 11, 13; Malachi 4: 4), so these books had to be rejected.

But then they found that the New Testament repeatedly referred to the Old Testament as inspired authority (about eight hundred twenty-four times), and to their consternation they discovered that Jesus declared the first five books in the Bible were written by Moses (Mark 12: 26; Luke 24: 25, 44, 45), and that He asked: "If ye believe not his [Moses'] writings, how shall ye believe My words?" John 5:46, 47. The critics had declared that the account of the Flood was only a myth, which no intelligent person could believe. But Jesus said: "Noe entered into the ark," and "the Flood came, and took them all away." Matthew 24:38,39. He even believed the truthfulness of the account of Jonah's being in the great fish for three days, and of his preaching in Nineveh afterwards. (Matthew 12: 40, 41.) There was, therefore, no way of reconciling Jesus to higher criticism, so they rejected Him as the divine Son of God.

p 33 -- For if Jesus did not know that those Old Testament stories were only myths, He was deceived. If He knew this, and yet taught them, He was a deceiver. In either case He could not be divine, they reasoned:

"If in the dawning of the fortieth century, it shall be found that the law and the prophets are obsolete, the Gospels and Epistles discarded, Moses forgotten, and Paul and his writings set aside to make room for the inerrant productions of [higher critics], . . . if it shall then appear that the hunted prophets who wandered in sheepskins and goatskins, and were destitute, afflicted, and tormented, 'of whom the world was not worthy,' have gone down before the onslaught of the learned and well-salaried professors of modern universities; if it shall appear that the word of the Lord which they uttered at the loss of all things and at the peril of life itself has paled its ineffectual fires before the rising radiance of oracular higher criticism; if it shall then be learned that God hath chosen the rich in this world, poor in faith and heirs of the kingdom -- who can tell how welcome this information may prove to those who suppose that gain is godIiness, and that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a poor man to enter the kingdom of heaven?" -- '' The Anti-Infidel Library," H. L. Hastings, "More Bricks From the Babel of the Higher Critics," pp. 172, 173. Boston: Scriptural Tract Repository, 1895.

Some might properly ask how Romanists dared to start higher criticism. Would not this menace be equally dangerous to their church? Absolutely not! The Roman church rests on an entirely different foundation. The Church, and not the Bible, is her authority. She flourishes best where the Bible is least circulated, as history amply shows. But Protestantism that rejects the inspiration of the Bible, has abandoned its foundation, and stands helpless. It is like a ship that has lost its mooring, thrown away its chart and compass, and is drifting toward -- Rome. TOP

The Prophetic History of the World

p 34 --The prophecies of the Bible are not difficult to understand, if we follow the rules laid down in Scripture for interpreting prophecy. These rules are few in number, and they are not complicated. When used in connection with prophetic symbols, "sea," or "waters," stand for "multitudes" of people (Revelation 17: 15; Isaiah 8: 7; 17: 12; Jeremiah 6: 23); wind " stands for " war " (Jeremiah 4: 12, 13; 25: 31, 32); "beasts" stand for "kingdoms" (Daniel 7:23); and "days" for "years" (Ezekiel 4: 6).

The prophet Daniel saw in vision four winds of war, which strove upon the great sea of people, and four great beasts, or kingdoms, came up one after the other. " The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings." Daniel 7: 2 - 4. In Jeremiah 49: 19, 22, 28, a lion is used to symbolize the kingdom of Babylon (606-538 B. C.). The second beast was like a bear (Daniel 7: 5), and denoted Medo-Persia, the next world empire (538-331 B. C.). The "three ribs in the mouth of it" were the three chief countries which it conquered, Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt.

He next saw a leopard having four heads and four wings (v. 6), symbolizing the Grecian Empire (331-168,B. C.). A leopard is very alert, and adding to this symbol four wings would indicate that Grecia would make rapid conquest, which was true. Alexander the Great marched his army 5,100 miles in eight years and conquered the then known civilized world. The four heads on the leopard denote the four divisions into which that empire was split up after the death of Alexander.

" The fourth beast," the angel explained, "shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth." (v. 23.) The fourth empire from Babylon was Rome (168 B. C. to 476 A. D.). The angel also informs us that "the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise." (v. 24.) The Roman Empire was split up into just ten

p 35 -- smaller kingdoms between the years 351 and 476 A. D. The following are their ancient and modern names: 1. Alemanni -- Germany. 2. Franks -- France. 3. Anglo-Saxons -- England. 4. Burgundians -- Switzerland. 5. Visigoths -- Spain. 6 -- Suevi -- Portugal. 7. Lombards -- Italy. 8. Heruli. 9. Vandals. 10. Ostrogoths. TOP

This prophecy is so plain, and the explanation so natural and easy to understand, that all commentators, both Protestant and Catholic, fully agree on it. (See Sir Isaac Newton's "Observations upon the Prophecies," pp. 157-159; Bishop Thomas Newton, "Dissertations on the Prophecies," pp. 201-221; Joseph Tanner on "Daniel and the Revelation," pp. 165-174; Martin Luther's "Introduction," pp. 32, 33, Frederikshald, 1853.)

The Douay, or Catholic, version of the Bible has the following notes on Daniel 7: 3, 7, 8. "Four great beasts. Viz., the Chaldean, Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires." "Ten horns. That is, ten kingdoms, (as Apoc. 17. 12,) among which the empires of the fourth beast shall be parcelled." "Another little horn. This is commonly understood of Antichrist."

In regard to these ten kingdoms, Sir Isaac Newton says:

"Whatever was their number afterwards, they are still called the Ten Kings from their first number." -- " Daniel and the Apocalypse," p. 187; first printed, 1733; reprinted, London: 1922.


I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn." Daniel 7: 8. Let us now consider all the characteristics this prophecy gives to the little horn, and we shall be forced by weight of evidence to settle on just one power as the fulfillment of these predictions.

(1. ) It was to come up " among " the ten European kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was split. (v. 8.) (2. ) It " shall rise" to power "after them." (v. 24.) (3. ) "And he shall be diverse from the first" ten kingdoms; that is, different from ordinary, secular kingdoms. (v. 24.) Any one acquainted with history knows that the Papacy is the only power that answers to

p 36 -- all these specifications. It rose "among" the kingdoms of Western Rome, "after" they were established in A. D. 476, and it differed from a purely civil power. But the angel gives still another mark of identity to the little horn. (4) Before it "there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots." (V. 8.) That is, in coming up it pushed out before it three of the former horns by the roots. Thus three kingdoms were to be plucked up to give place for the Papacy. This prediction found its exact fulfillment in the destruction of the three Arian kingdoms: the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths, as we now shall see. Rev. E. B. Elliott, M.A., says:

"I might cite three that were eradicated from before the Pope out of the list first given; viz., the Heruli under Odoacer, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths." -- " Horoe Apocalypticoe, " Vol. III, p. 168, Note 1. London: 1862.

In former days crowns of conquered kings were placed on the head of the conqueror. (2 Samuel 12: 30.) It is symbolically fitting, therefore, that the pope wears a triple crown. Bishop Thomas Newton, speaking of the power that destroyed the three horns, says: "And the pope hath in a manner pointed himself out for the person by wearing the triple crown." -- "Dissertations on the Prophecies," p. 220. London.

A brief statement of the political and religious conditions in the Roman world is necessary here in order that the reader may better grasp the real situation in which these three Arian kingdoms found themselves. After Constantine had removed the seat of the empire from Rome to Constantinople, the Roman people were (at intervals) ruled from that Eastern capital, until the pope had grown to power in Rome. While the Papacy was gradually gaining control over the people of the West, the Eastern emperors were courting the good will of the popes in order to hold their Western subjects. TOP

From the time of Constantine to that of Justinian there was a deadly struggle between the two largest factions of the Church, the Catholics and the Arians. Often there was terrible strife, and even bloodshed. "The streets of Alexandria and of Constantinople

p 37 -- were deluged with blood by the partisans of rival bishops." -- " History of Christianity," H. H. Milman, Book III, chap. 5, par. 2, p. 410. New York: 2-vol. ed., 1881. Most of the barbarian nations into which the Roman Empire was now split had accepted the Catholic faith. But the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths were Arians.

While the emperors courted the help of the popes for political reasons, the popes sought the assistance of the emperors to destroy the Arians. Theodosius, the Emperor of the East, had al ready (380-395 A. D.) given "fifteen stern edicts against heresy, one on the average for every year of his reign. . . . So began the campaign which ended in the virtual extinction of Arianism in the Roman world." -- " Italy and her Invaders," Thomas Hodgkin, Vol. I, pp. 368, 369. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 8 - vol. ed. of 1899.

In A. D. 380, the Emperor Theodosius issued an edict which said: " We order those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians: we pronounce all others to be mad and foolish, and we order that they bear the ignominious name of heretics. . . . These are to be visited . . . by the stroke of our own authority." -- " Italy and her Invaders," T. Hodgkin, Vol. I, p. 183. Two-vol. Ed. of 1880.

"Thus did the reign and legislation of Theodosius mark out the lines of future relationship between Pope and Emperor." Id., p. 187.

Embassies passed continually between the pope of Rome and the emperor of Constantinople, and in 381 A. D. Theodosius arranged for a general council of the clergy at Constantinople, which finally established the Catholic doctrine. "To him also, at least as much as to Constantine, must be attributed the permanent alliance between the Church and the State." -- Id., pp. I82, 183.


The Heruli under Odoacer had established themselves in Italy, 476 A. D.; and while this Arian king ruled all his subjects

p 38 -- impartially, he endeavored to shield his people from the persecution inaugurated by the combined efforts of the pope and the emperor. Pasquale Villari, writing of the period between 468 and 483 A. D., says:

"At that time the Pope was morally, and even more than morally speaking, the most powerful personage in Italy. If Odovacar [Odoacer], as an Arian, had openly opposed him, Simplicius [the Pope] could have easily roused the whole country against him, and made it impossible for him to maintain his position in Italy." --" The Barbarian Invasion of Italy," Vol. I, pp. 145, 146. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902. TOP

And just such an opportunity soon presented itself:

"Pope Simplicius died on the 2nd of March, 483, whereupon Odovacar made a false move, of which he felt the consequences before long. Undoubtedly it was very important for him to control the choice of a new Pontiff. He sought not only to prevent the riots which had often caused bloodshed in the streets of Rome on similar occasions, but also desired a Pope well disposed to himself. Thus when the preliminary assembly failed to agree in the choice of a candidate, the Pretorian Prefect, Cecina Basilius, suddenly intervened in Odovacar's name, and declared that no election would be valid without the King's voice. . . .A decree was likewise issued prohibiting the alienation of Church property and threatening anathema on all who failed to respect it. After this the Assembly was summoned to sanction the decree and decide the election, which resulted in favor of Felix II (483-492), the candidate recommended by Odovacar." -- Id., p. 146.

"His interference in the Papal election has cast into the Roman Church the seed of a deep and threatening distrust towards him." -- Id., p. 147.

Rome could never forgive such an affront, and through its faithful ally, the emperor, another barbarian nation, the Ostrogoths were called in to destroy the hated Heruli. Niccolo Machiavelli relates how the popes used such a method. He says: " Nearly all the wars which the northern barbarians carried

p 39-- on in Italy, it may be here remarked, were occasioned by the pontiffs; and the hordes, with which the country was inundated, were generally called in by them. The same mode of proceeding still continued, and kept Italy weak and unsettled." -- " History of Florence," p. 13. Washington and London: Universal Classics Library, 1901.

Villari says that Theodoric at the head of the Ostrogothic hordes entered Italy in the autumn of 488, backed by the authority of the emperor and the Church. Because the discord that had now broken out between Odovacar and the pope had weakened the former and consequently made him less formidable, after two disastrous battles he retreated toward the city of Rome for safety from the Ostrogoths, but "the gates of Rome were shut in his face, and the inhabitants of Italy began to show him marked hostility; partly on account of his recent conflict with the Church, partly for the increased deeds of spoliation. . . . The Church had taken advantage of all these causes of discontent in order to excite the populace against him; and before long it was openly said that the clergy had organized a general conspiracy against him somewhat, it would seem, in the style of the Sicilian Vespers." -- " The Barbarian Invasion of Italy," 2 - vol. ed. of 1880. Vol. I, pp. 153-156.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, D. D., says:

"Odoacer was sinking before Theodoric, and the Pope was changing one Arian master for another." -- " An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," Part II, p. 320. London: I878. TOP

Villari continues: "On the 5th of March, 493, Theodoric entered Ravenna in triumph, all the clergy coming forth to meet him, chanting Psalms, and with the Archbishop at the head of the procession." -- " The Barbarian Invasion of Italy," Vol. 1, p. 158. Ten days later Odoacer was murdered in cold blood.

Hodgkin points out that this coming of the archbishop to meet the Ostrogoths was staged so as to " impress vividly on the minds both of Italians and Ostrogoths that Theodoric came as the friend of the Catholic Church." -- " Italy and Her Invaders,"

p 40 -- 8-vol. Ed., Vol. III, book 4, pp. 234, 235. Hodgkin further states that the Roman clergy were privy to a terrible secret plot of murdering the followers of Odovacar all over Italy. (Id., Pp. 225, 226.)

The Heruli disappeared from history. Thus the first of the three horns of Daniel 7: 8 was "plucked up by the roots," and history leaves no room for doubt but that the Papacy through its allies engineered this act because of its opposition to Arianism.


Before passing to the next power destroyed by the Papacy we shall briefly state the condition of the Roman Empire at this time. Justinian had finally ascended the throne of Constantinople as the Emperor of the East, 527 A. D. He was a shrewd politician, and in his effort to extend his rule over the whole of the Roman Empire he realized his need of securing the co-operation of the highly organized Catholic Church, for it was directed by a single head (the pope), and worked as a unit all over the empire, while the Arian nations stood separately, without any central organization, and hence they were weak. Then too, the Arians were very wealthy, and if Justinian could conquer them in the name of "the true Church," he could confiscate their property and thus secure means to carry on his many wars. We read:

"Justinian (527) already meditated . . . the conquest of Italy and Africa." -- " Decline and Fall," Edward Gibbon, chap. 39, par. 17.

"Justinian felt that the support of the Pope was necessary in his reconquering of the West. " -- "History of Medieval Europe," L. Thorndike, pH D., p. 133. Cambridge, Mass.: 1918.

"Justinian spared nothing in his efforts to conciliate the Roman Church, and we find inserted with evident satisfaction in Justinian's Code pontifical letters, which praised his efforts to maintain 'the peace of the church and the unity of religion.'" -- "Cambridge Medieval History," Bury, Gwatkin, and Whitney, Vol. II, p. 44. New York: 1913.TOP

p 41 -- Procopius, the historian who followed Justinian's armies, says:

"In his zeal to gather all men into one Christian doctrine, he recklessly killed all who dissented, and this too he did in the name of piety. For he did not call it homicide, when those who perished happened to be of a belief that was different from his own." -- " Secret History of the Court of Justinian," pp. 138, 139. Chicago: P. Covici, 1927.

"Now the churches of these so-called heretics, especially those belonging to the Arian dissenters, were almost incredibly wealthy " -- Id., p. 121.

"Agents were sent everywhere to force whomever they chanced upon to renounce the faith of their fathers. . . . Thus many perished at the hands of the persecuting faction; . . . but most of them by far quitted the land of their fathers, and fled the country . . . and thenceforth the whole Roman Empire was a scene of massacre and flight." -- Id., p. 122.

Dom John Chapman (Roman Catholic) says of Justinian: "He felt himself to be the Vicegerent of the Almighty to rule the world and bring it all to the service of Christ. His wars were holy wars. In later centuries a Byzantine battle began like a church ceremony. Even in the sixth century every enterprise was consecrated by religion.

"He was well aware that judicious persecution is a great help towards conversion! . . .He strengthened the existing laws against pagans, Jews, and heretics. . . . Many were burnt at Constantinople after the Emperor had made vain attempts to convert them. John of Ephesus . . . was employed in this apostolate. He boasts that in 546 he gained 70,000 pagans in Asia Minor, including nobles and rhetoricians and physicians, and many in Constantinople. Tortures discovered these men, and scourgings and imprisonment induced them to accept instruction and baptism. A Patricius, named Phocus, hearing that he had been denounced, took poison. The Emperor ordered that he should be buried as an ass is buried. The pious Emperor paid all the expenses of this Christian mission, and gave to each of

p 42 -- the 70,000 Asiatics the white garments for their baptism and a piece of money."

"Other heretics were given three months grace. All magistrates and soldiers had to swear that they were Catholics." -- "Studies in the Early Papacy," Dom John Chapman, p. 222. London: Sheed and Ward, 1928. New York: Benziger Brothers. TOP


"Justinian's cherished aim was the reconquest of Italy by the Empire; but in order to succeed in this it was necessary to secure his rear by overthrowing the Vandals and resuming possession of Africa." -- " The Barbarian Invasion of Italy," P. Villari, Vol. 1, p. 197.

A pretext for breaking his oath of peace with the Arian Vandals soon presented itself. The Vandal government had oppressed the Roman Catholics just as the emperor, under the influence of the Papacy, had oppressed the Arians. But when Hilderic came to the Vandal throne he, through the influence of his Catholic wife, had restored the Roman clergy to their ancient privileges, and this had so displeased the Vandal leaders that Gelimer, a zealous Arian, had dethroned and imprisoned him, and reigned in his place. " A strong appeal was thus made to the piety [?] of the Emperor to deliver the true Catholic Church of the West out of the hands of the barbarian heretics." -- " Medieval and Modern History," P. V. N. Myers, p. 62. Boston: 1897.

Justinian wavered for a time, fearing to attack these warlike Vandals, but a Catholic bishop assured him of victory, claiming "he had seen a vision, in which God commanded that the war should be immediately undertaken. 'It is the will of Heaven, 0 Emperor!' exclaimed the bishop." -- Id., p. 63.

Treachery, which with Rome and her allies has always been a justifiable weapon, was here used in the service of the church by her dutiful son. Justinian sent an army of 200,000 trained men under the leadership of Belisarius to conquer the Vandals, without declaring war, and unbeknown to Gelimer, their king. Villari says:

p 43 -- "Belisarius landed on the African coast at nine days' march from Carthage [the Vandal capital]. He did not assume the attitude of a conqueror, but came, he said, as the deliverer of the Catholics and Romans, the clergy and lay proprietors, who were all equally oppressed by those foreign barbarians, the heretic Vandals." -- " The Barbarian Invasion of Italy," Vol. 1, p. 198.

Thus Belisarius won the enthusiastic support of a large part of the population. To undermine the zeal of the Vandal leaders for their king he sent the "leading men of the Vandals" a letter from Justinian, stating that he intended only to dethrone the usurping king, who was tyrannizing over them, and to give them back their liberty. The letter reads:

"'It is not our purpose to go to war with the Vandals, nor are we breaking our treaty with Gaiseric. We are only attempting to overthrow your tyrant, who making light of Gaiseric's testament keeps your king a prisoner. . . . Therefore join us in freeing yourselves from a tyranny so wicked, that you may enjoy peace and liberty. We give you pledge in the name of God that we will give you these blessings.' . . . The overseer of the public post deserted and delivered all the horses to Belisarius." -- " History of the Later Roman Empire," J. B. Bury, Vol. II, p. 130. London: The Macmillan Co., 1925.

But Justinian never intended to keep his solemn oath to grant them liberty, and the people soon found Rome the severest of tyrants. TOP

"In 533 the Byzantine general, Belisarius (q.v.) landed in Africa. The Vandals were several times defeated, and Carthage entered on Sept. 15, 533. . . . In the next year Africa, Sardinia, and Corsica were restored to the Roman Empire. As a nation, the Vandals soon ceased to exist. " -- Nelson's Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. " Vandals," pp. 380, 381. New York: 1907.

"Religious intolerance accompanied the imperial restoration in the West. In Africa, as in Italy, Arians were spoiled for the benefit of Catholics, their churches were destroyed or ruined, and their lands confiscated." -- " Cambridge Medieval History," Bury, Gwatkin, and Whitney, Vol. II, p. 44. New York: 1913.

p 44 -- "The Arian heresy was proscribed, and the race of these remarkable conquerors was in a short time exterminated. . . . There are few instances in history of a nation disappearing so rapidly and so completely as the Vandals of Africa." -- " A History of Greece Under the Romans," George Finlay, p. 234. London and New York: J. M. Dent, ed., 1856.

"Africa, subdued by the arms of Belisarius, returned at once under the dominion of the empire and of Catholicism. . . . One imperial edict was sufficient(A. D. 533) to restore all the churches to the Catholic worship."-" Latin Christianity," H. H. Milman, Book 3, chap. 4, p. 455. New York: Crowell & Co., 1881. Thus the second horn of Daniel 7: 8 was "plucked up by the roots."

Here we have one sample out of many in history as to what kind of religious liberty Rome grants wherever she obtains the power.


Theodoric, king of the Ostrogothic nation of Italy, maintained complete religious liberty for all classes and creeds. He wrote to Justin, Emperor of the East, who was persecuting the Arians: "'To pretend to a domination over the conscience, is to usurp the prerogative of God; by the nature of things the power of sovereigns is confined to political government; they have no right of punishment but over those who disturb the public peace; the most dangerous heresy is that of a sovereign who separates himself from part of his subjects, because they believe not according to his belief."' -- " History of Latin Christianity," H. H. Milman, Vol. I, Book III, chap. 3, p. 439. New York: 1860.

The wars of the migrating barbarians on the one side, and the persecutions of heathen, Jews, and Arians by the Catholic Church on the other, had kept Italy in constant turmoil. Agricultural pursuits were neglected, people crowded into the cities, and want and starvation faced the population. But Theodoric's wise and firm rule, and the strict religious liberty he established

p 45-- in Italy, brought peace, prosperity, and happiness to all classes. J. G. Sheppard, D. D., says:

"'Theodoric deserves the highest praise; for, during the thirty-eight years he reigned in Italy, he brought the country to such a state of greatness, that her previous sufferings were no longer recognizable.' . . . What then prevented this man, with so great a genius for government, and so splendid an opportunity for its exercise, from organizing a Germanic empire, equal in extent and power to that which obeyed the sceptre of the old Roman Caesars? Or why did he fail, when Charlemagne, with a greater complication of interests to deal with, for a time at least, succeeded? TOP

"The causes were mainly these; causes . . . very similar, at all times, in their operation. In the first place, Theodoric was an Arian, and there was a power antagonistic to Arianism growing up already on the banks of the Tiber, stronger than the statesmen's policy or the soldier's sword -- the spiritual power of the church of Rome. . . . Such a power was necessarily altogether incompatible with the existence of an Arian empire. And it proved mightier than its rival." -- "Fall of Rome," John G. Sheppard, D. D., pp. 301, 302. London: 1861.

In order to give the reader a better understanding of the means used by the Papacy to destroy these Arian kingdoms, we shall quote from Thomas Hodgkin a few brief statements. He states that Theodoric, the Ostrogothic king, endeavored to have "a close league for mutual defence formed between the four great Arian and Teutonic monarchies, the Visigothic, the Burgundian, the Ostrogothic, and the Vandal." But "diplomatists were wanting [who could act] as their skillful and eloquent representatives, traveling like Epiphanius from court to court, and bringing the barbarian sovereigns to understand each other, to sink their petty grievances, and to work together harmoniously for one common end. Precisely these men were the Catholic prelates of the Mediterranean lands to whom it was all-important that no such Arian league should be formed. . . . All over the Roman world there was a serried array of Catholic bishops

p 46 -- and presbyters, taking their orders from a single centre, Rome, feeling the interest of each one to be the interests of all, in lively and constant intercourse with one another, quick to discover, quick to disclose the slightest weak place in the organization of the new heretical kingdoms. Of all this there was not the slightest trace on the other side. The Arian bishops . . . stood apart from one another in stupid and ignorant isolation." -- "Italy and Her Invaders," Thomas Hodgkin, (8-vol. Ed.) Vol. III, Book 4, pp. 381-383. Oxford: 1899.

This same principle was clearly stated by the Catholic bishop Avitus, when the Arian king Gundobad appealed to him not to allow the Catholic king Clovis to overrun his country. Avitus answered: " If Gundobad would reconcile himself to the Church, the Church would guarantee his safety from the attacks of Clovis." -- Id., p. 384.

The religious liberty, with its attendant blessings to the country, which Theodoric had inaugurated, did not satisfy the Catholic bishops; for Rome does not want, religious liberty for other churches, but sole domination for herself.

"The religious toleration which Theodoric had the glory of introducing into the Christian world, was painful and offensive to the orthodox zeal of the Italian." -- " Decline and Fall," Edward Gibbon, chap. 39, par. 17. TOP

"Theodoric, . . . being an Arian, could not long remain on harmonious terms with a Pope and [an] Emperor of the Orthodox creed, [who were] necessarily bound to combine against him sooner or later." -- " The Barbarian Invasion of Italy," P. Villari, Vol. I, p. 178. London: 1913; New York: Scribner, 1902.

This was only natural. The fundamental principles of the church of Rome are such that she can never concede to any other denomination the equal right to exist and to carry on its worship. Urged on by the pope and his bishops, Emperor Justin had enacted severe laws against Arians (524 A. D.), and Justinian began his reign in 527 by making laws still more severe.

"Theodoric, the King of Italy, at first maintained something

p 47 -- of his usual calm moderation; he declined all retaliation, to which he had been incessantly urged, on the orthodox of the West." -- " Latin Christianity," H. H. Milman, D. D., Vol. I, Book III, chap. 3, p. 440.

But the concerted efforts of pope and emperor, by fire, sword, and exile, to exterminate "Arianism" at last "awakened the just resentment of Theodoric, who claimed for his distressed brethren of the East the same indulgence which he had so long granted to the Catholics of his dominions. . . . And a mandate was prepared in Italy, to prohibit, after a stated day, the exercise of the Catholic worship. By the bigotry of his subjects and enemies, the most tolerant of princes was driven to the brink of persecution." -- "Decline and Fall," chap. 39, par. 17.

"In Italy, Theodoric's prolonged toleration had reconciled no one to him, and his ultimate severity exasperated his Roman Subjects. A dumb agitation held sway in the West, and the coming of the Emperor's soldiers was eagerly awaited and desired." -- "Cambridge Medieval History," Bury, Gwatkin, and Whitney,Vol. II, p. 10. Chicago: The Macmillan Company, 1913.

"And truly the chief men of Rome were suspected, at this very time, of carrying on a treasonable correspondence with the Court of Constantinople, and machinating the ruin of the Gothic empire in Italy." -- " History of the Popes," A. Bower, Vol. II, p. 421. Dublin: 1749. TOP

In the summer of 535 Belisarius started with 7,500 men besides his own guards to conquer Italy and destroy the Arian heretics. This he could do only by the assistance of the Roman Catholics.

"But with great shrewdness he had quickly won their good will, by announcing that he came to deliver them from the barbarian yoke, and from the Arian persecution, and also for the purpose of restoring Rome to her ancient grandeur." -- " The Barbarian Invasion of Italy," P. Villari, Vol. 1, p. 201.

Witigis [Vitiges] was now the king of the Ostrogoths, and Rome was continuing its usual policy. Professor J. B. Bury says: "In the meantime Belisarius had left Naples and was marching

p 48 -- northward. The Romans, warned by the experiences of Naples, and urged by the Pope, who bad no scruples in breaking his oath with Witigis, sent a messenger inviting him to come. He . . . entered Rome on December 9, A. D. 536." -- "History of the Later Roman Empire," Vol. II, pp. 179, 180.

"Such, then, was the Pope Silverius . . . who, having sworn a solemn oath of fealty to Witigis, now, near the end of 536, sent messengers to Belisarius to offer the peaceful surrender of the city of Rome." -- "Italy and Her Invaders," T. Hodgkin (8-vol. Ed.), Vol. IV, Book 5, p. 93. 1885.

"Rome betrayed. The Catholics, on the first approach of the emperor's army, boldly raised the cry that the apostolic throne (!) should no longer be profaned by the triumph or toleration of Arianism, nor the tombs of the Caesars trampled by the savages of the North; and deputies of the pope and clergy, and of what is called the senate and people, waited upon the approaching army to whom they threw open the gates of the city; and the Catholics were rewarded for their treason by the apparent respect of Belisarius for the pope." -- " History of the Christian Church," N. Summerbell, page 340, third edition. Cincinnati: 1873.

Witigis then besieged the city of Rome from March, 537, to March, 538, when he raised the siege, after losing the flower of his army, and retired to Ravenna, his capital. T. Hodgkin says: "With heavy hearts the barbarians must have thought, as they turned them northwards, upon the many graves of gallant men which they were leaving on that fatal plain. Some of them must have suspected the melancholy truth that they had dug one grave, deeper and wider than all, the grave of the Gothic monarchy in Italy." -- " Italy and Her Invaders," (8-vol. Ed.) Vol. IV, p. 285. TOP

A deathblow was thus given to the Ostrogoths in 538 A. D., and their attempts to re-establish themselves after this were but the last flicker of a lamp being extinguished. Belisarius followed them this same year to their " last stronghold of power. Ravenna was soon entered by the troops of the empire, and with it fell the

p 49 -- great kingdom of the Ostrogoths." -- " Fall of Rome," J. G. ,b(j)pard, p. 306. London: 1892.

"Then occurred a singular phenomenon -- the annihilation and disappearance of a great and powerful people from the world's history." -- Id., p. 307.

But let all remember, that "the success of Justinian's invasion was due to the clergy; in the ruin they brought upon their country, and the relentless tyranny they drew upon themselves, they had their reward." -- " History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, " J. W. Draper, M. D., LL. D., Vol. I, p. 355. New York: Harper Brothers., 1889.

The last of the three Arian "horns" of Daniel 7: 8 had passed away, and with it passed also the liberty of the common people. Dr. N. Summerbell truthfully says:

"The Dark Ages, introduced by the persecution of an enlightened Church in the sanguinary wars of Justinian to exalt the Catholics, continued up to the fourteenth century. It was a long, dark night, when ignorance, bigotry, and cruelty reigned, and truth, purity, and justice were crushed out. " -- "History of the Christian Church," p. 342.


It has been claimed by some that the Lombard nation was one of the three horns of Daniel 7: 8, which were rooted up by the Papacy. We shall therefore investigate this claim carefully before leaving this subject. It is true that the Lombards, who settled in Italy, 568 A. D., were at first Arians, but they soon became converted to the Roman Catholic faith (615 A. D.). Professor J. B. Bury says:

"In the century which intervened between the death of Gregory I [604 A. D.] and the accession of Gregory II [715] the Lombards had been transformed from Arian heretics into devout Catholics, so that the religious difficulty which parted Roman from Lombard had disappeared." -- " The Cambridge Medieval

p 50 -- History," Vol. II, p. 694. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1913.

That the Lombards were not subdued on account of any opposition to the papal church is also witnessed by the following quotation: "Slowly however the light of faith made way among them and the Church won their respect and obedience. This meant protection for the conquered. " -- "The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, art. "Lombards," p. 338.

Even though the Lombards were subdued by Pepin (755 A. D.), and later by Charlemagne (774), yet they were not destroyed. The Lombard kingdom in Italy had long been divided into smaller "duchies," and Charlemagne allowed several of these to continue, while they nominally recognized him as emperor (such an arrangement became common for centuries in Italy). TOP

"The Lombards, having now been two hundred and thirty-two years in the country, were strangers only in name; and Charles, wishing to reorganize the states of Italy, consented that they should occupy the places in which they had been brought up, and call the province after their own name, Lombardy. . . .

"In the meantime, the Emperor Charles died and was succeeded by Lewis, . . . [and] at the time of his grandchildren, the house of France lost the empire, which then came to the Germans. [During these changes] the Lombards [were] gathering strength." -- " The History of Florence," N. Machiavelli, pp. 15, 16. Washington and London: Universal Classics Library, 1901.

In 1167 A. D., the different Lombard cities were organized into separate republics, and combined into the famous Lombard League. Being devoted to the pope they fought the excommunicated German emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, who would subjugate them, and who "endeavored to, force upon the church an anti-pope in the place of Alexander III."

Finally in 1176 A. D., the combined armies of the Lombard

p 51 -- League met the emperor's forces in a decisive battle on the plains of Legnano.

''The imperial army was so utterly overthrown and dispersed, that for some time the fate of the emperor was uncertain. Three days after the battle he appeared in Pavia, alone, and in . . . disguise. . . . For twenty-one years Frederick had been struggling against the independence of Lombardy. With seven armies he had swept their doomed territory, inflicting atrocities the recital of which sickens humanity. The fatal battle of Legnano left him for a time powerless, and he was compelled to assent to a truce for six years. At the expiration of this truce, in the year 1183, by the peace of Constance, the comparative independence of Lombardy was secured; a general supremacy of dignity rather than of power being conceded to the emperor. " -- " Italy From the Earliest Period to the Present Day, " John S. C. Abbott, pp. 438, 439. New York: 1860.

Not only had the kingdom of Lombardy maintained its independence, but " the generous resistance of the Lombards, during a war of thirty years, had conquered from the emperors political liberty for all the towns in the kingdom of Italy." -- "A History of the Italian Republics," J. C. S. de Sismondi, p. 61. New York: 1904.

If space permitted, we could trace the kingdom of Lombardy for nearly two centuries more, but this will suffice to prove that the Lombards were not destroyed by Charlemagne, when subdued by him in 774, neither could they be one of the three powers plucked up by the roots to give place for the Papacy. (Daniel 7:8) A people plucked up by the roots in 774 would hardly fight so heroically for four hundred years afterwards to maintain their independence till mighty emperors had to yield. But even if the Lombards had been destroyed by Charlemagne in 774, they could not be reckoned as one of the three nations plucked up to give place to the Papacy; for, if we reckon the 1260 years of papal supremacy from 774, they would end in 2034 A. D., which would entirely dislocate the prophetic reckoning, as we shall see in the next chapter. TOP



p 52 --The little horn of Daniel 7: 8, 25, was to reign for "a time and times and the dividing of time." This same " time, and times, and half a time " is also mentioned in Revelation 12: 14, and in the sixth verse it is said to be " a thousand two hundred and threescore days." In prophecy a day always stands for a year. (Ezekiel 4: 6.) This prophetic period is therefore 1260 literal years. We shall now show that these 1260 years began in 538 A. D., and invite the reader to notice the four great changes that took place that year:

1. -- We have already seen that the little horn symbolized the Papacy, and that three Arian kingdoms, which stood in its way, were plucked up by the roots, and that the last of these received its deathblow in 538 A. D. through the efforts of Justinian, the faithful son of the church of Rome.

2. -- History states that the work of Justin and Justinian in elevating the Papacy to power brought on a new era, introducing the Middle Ages:

"Accordingly, the religious and political tendencies of the Empire now took so different a direction as to positively constitute the dawn of a new era. . . . Thus at last Rome had triumphed, after fighting so long with unflinching vigour and without yielding a single point." -- " The Barbarian Invasion of Italy," P. Villari, Vol. I, pp. 177, 178.

"The reign of Justinian is more remarkable as a portion of the history of mankind, than as a chapter in the annals of the Roman Empire or of the Greek nation. The changes of centuries pass in rapid succession before the eyes of one generation. . . .

"With the conquest of Rome by Belisarius, the history of the ancient city may be considered as terminating; and with his defence against Witigis [A. D. 538], commences the history of the

p 53 -- Middle Ages." -- " Greece Under the Romans," George Finlay, pp. 198, 240, Dent edition, revised by author, 1877. TOP

3. -- Even the Papacy itself changed, so there was a new order of popes after 538 A. D. History relates: " Down to the sixth century all popes are declared saints in the martyrologies. Vigillius (537-555) is the first of a series of popes who no longer bear this title, which is henceforth sparingly conferred. From this time on the popes, more and more enveloped in worldly events, no longer belong solely to the church; they are men of the state, and then rulers of the state." -- " Medieval Europe," Belmont and Monod (revised by George Burton Adams), p. 120. New York: H. Holt & Co., 1902.

In the foregoing quotation the date of Vigillius should be 538 instead of 537 for the following reason: "Vigillius having been thus ordained in the year 537, . . . and the death of Silverius having been certainly not earlier than 20 June, A. D. 538, it is evident that for at least seven months his position was that of an unlawful anti-pope, his predecessor never having been canonically deposed." -- " Dictionary of Christian Biography", Drs. Smith and Wace, Vol. IV, art. " Vigillius," p. 1144. London: 1887.

For this reason A. Bower says:

"From the death of Silverius the Roman Catholic writers date the Episcopacy of Vigillius, reckoning him thenceforth among the lawful popes." -- " History of the Popes," Vol. II, p. 488, under the year " 538." Dublin: 1751.

"His [Silverius'] death happened on the 20th of June 538.". -- Id., p. 488.

Dr. Philip Schaff says:

"Vigillius, a pliant creature of Theodora, ascended the papal chair under the military protection of Belisarius (538-555)." -- "History of the Christian Church," (7-vol. Ed.), Vol. III, p. 327. New York: Scribner's, 1893. See also "General History of the Catholic Church," M. l'Abbe J. E. Darras, Vol. II, pp. 146, 147 (New York: 1866), and " The Official Catholic Directory," for 1933, "List of Roman Pontiffs" on page 7.

p 54 -- 4. Dr. Summerbell gives still another reason why we should date the beginning of the papal supremacy from 538. He says:

"Justinian . . .enriched himself with the property of all 'heretics' -- that is non-Catholics, and gave all their churches to the Catholics; published edicts in 538 compelling all to join the Catholic Church in ninety days or leave the empire, and confiscated all their goods." -- " History of the Christian Church," pp. 310, 311. Cincinnati: 1873. The same is stated by Samuel Chandler in "History of Persecution," pp. 142, 143; and by Edward Gibbon, in " Decline and Fall," chap. 47, par. 24.


Thus we see that Roman Catholicism was made the state religion in 538, and all other religions were forbidden. What gave special significance to these edicts of Justinian was the fact that he had already in 533 declared the bishop of Rome to be the head of the universal church, and had subjected all the priests even of the East under the See of Rome. This fact he wrote to Pope John II on March 15, 533, in the following language:

"With honor to the Apostolic See, . . . We hasten to bring to the knowledge of Your Holiness everything relating to the condition of the Church, as we have always had great desire to preserve the unity of your Apostolic See, and the condition of the Holy Churches of God, as they exist at the present time, that they may remain without disturbance or opposition. Therefore, We have exerted Ourselves to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness. . . . For we do not suffer anything which has reference to the state of the Church, even though what causes the difficulty may be clear and free from doubt, to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the head of all Holy Churches, for we shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your see. . . .

"Therefore we request your paternal affection, that you, by your letters, inform Us and the Most Holy Bishop of this Fair

p 55 -- City, and your brother the Patriarch, who himself has written by the same messengers to Your Holiness, eager in all things to follow the Apostolic See of your Blessedness, in order that you may make it clear to Us that Your Holiness acknowledges all the matters which have been set forth above." -- " The Civil Law of Justinian," translated by S. P. Scott, A. M. (in 17 volumes), Book 12, pp. 11-13.TOP

To this letter Pope John II answered:

"John, Bishop of the City of Rome, to his most Illustrious and Merciful Son Justinian.

"Among the conspicuous reasons for praising your wisdom and gentleness, Most Christian of Emperors, and one which radiates light as a star, is the fact that through love of the Faith, and actuated by zeal for charity, you, learned in ecclesiastical discipline, have preserved reverence for the See of Rome, and have subjected all things to his authority and have given it unity . . .

"This See is indeed the head of all Churches, as the rules of the Fathers and the decrees of Emperors assert and the words of your most reverent piety testify. . . .

"We have received with all due respect the evidences of your serenity, through Hypatius and Demetrius, most holy men, my brothers and fellow bishops, from whose statements we have learned that you have promulgated an Edict addressed to your faithful people, and dictated by your love of the faith, for the purpose of overthrowing the designs of heretics, which is in accordance with the evangelical tenets, and which we have confirmed by our authority with the consent of our brethren and fellow bishops, for the reason that it is in conformity with the apostolic doctrine. . . .

"Therefore, it is opportune to cry out with a prophetic voice, 'Heaven will rejoice with You, and pour out its blessing upon You, and the mountains will rejoice, and the hills be glad with exceeding joy.' . . .

"The favor of Our Lord . . . remain forever with you, Most Pious Son, Amen. . . .

p 56 -- "Given at Rome, on the eighth of the Kalends of April, during the Consulate of Emperor Justinian, Consul for the fourth time."-- Id., pp. 10-15.

Both of these letters appear in the "Code of Justinian," as well as the following law: "Concerning the Precedence of Patriarchs:

"Hence, in accordance with the provisions of those Councils, we order that the Most Holy Pope of Ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of Ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all other sees." -- Id., Vol. XVII, p. 125. ("Constitutions of Justinian," Vol. XVII, 9th Collection, Title 14, chapter 2.) TOP

Under date of March 25, 533, Justinian, writing to Epiphanius, Patriarch of Constantinople, stating that he had written the above letter to the pope, "repeats his decision, that all affairs touching the Church shall be referred to the Pope, 'Head of all bishops, and the true and effective corrector of heretics.'" -- "The Apocalypse of St. John," George Croly, A. M., p. 170, second edition. London: 1828.

"The epistle which was addressed to the Pope, and another to the Patriarch of Constantinople, were inserted in the volume of the civil law; thus the sentiments contained in them obtained the sanction of the supreme legislative authority of the empire. . . .

"The answer of the Pope to the imperial epistle was also published with the other documents; and it is equally important, inasmuch as it shows that he understood the reference that had been made to him, as being a formal recognition of the supremacy of the see of Rome." -- " A Dissertation on the Seals and Trumpets of the Apocalypse," William Cuninghame, pp. 185,186. London: 1843; cited in "Source Book," pp. 383, 384, ed. of 1922.

"The recognition of the Roman see as the highest ecclesiastical authority (cf. Novelloe, cxxxi) remained the cornerstone of his [Justinian's] policy in relation to the West." -- "New

p 57 -- Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia," Vol. VI, art. "Justinian," p. 286.

Thus we see that the way had been prepared in 533, in anticipation of the three final acts which were to occur in 538, when the Arian powers were destroyed, Catholicism made the state religion, and the Papacy placed under the protection of the state, which gave rise to the long struggle between church and state as to which should be supreme.


Having now seen that the 1260 years of papal supremacy began in 538 A. D., it is an easy matter to find their close. Adding the 1260 years to 538 brings us to the year 1798. And if we have given the right application to this prophecy, history must record an event in 1798 that would appear like a death stroke to the Papacy. Turning to history we find just such an event recorded:

The official Swedish newspaper, Stockholms Posttidning, for March 29, 1798, has the following news item:

"Rome, the 21st of Feb. [1798], Pope Pius VI, has occupied the papal chair for all of twenty-eight years, but the 15th inst. his government in the Papal States was abolished, and five days later, guarded by one hundred French soldiers, he was taken away from his palace and his capital. . . .

"His . . . property was sold by the French, and among it were seven hundred head of cattle, one hundred fifty horses, and eight hundred cords of wood. . . .

"Poor Pius! He must have felt very sad as he left Rome to go into captivity. When he departed his tear-filled eyes were turned heavenward." TOP

Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., says of these events:

"In the years 1796, 1797, French dominion being established by Bonaparte's victories in Northern Italy, . . .the French armies [urged] their march onward to the Papal Capital. . . . The aged Pope himself, now left mere nominal master of some few remaining shreds of the Patrimony of Peter, experienced soon after in person the bitterness of the prevailing anti-papal spirit. . . .

p 58 -- "On pretence of an insult to the French Ambassador there, a French corps d'armee under Berthier, having in February, 1798, crossed the Apennines from Ancona, and entered Rome, the tricolour flag was displayed from the Capitol, amidst the shouts of the populace, the Pope's temporal reign declared at an end, and the Roman Republic proclaimed, in strict alliance fraternization with the French. Then, in the Sistine Chapel of the Vatican, the ante-hall to which has a fresco painted , by Papal order commemorative of the Protestant massacre on St. Bartholomew's-day, (might not the scene have served as a memento of God's retributive justice?) there, while seated on his throne, and receiving the gratulations of his cardinals on the anniversary of his election to the Popedom, he was arrested by the French military, the ring of his marriage with the Church Catholic torn from his finger, his palace rifled, and himself carried prisoner into France, only to die there in exile shortly after." -- " Horoe Apocalypticoe," Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., Vol. III, pp. 400, 401. London: 1862.

Arthur R. Pennington, M. A., F. R. Hist. Soc., says of this event:

"One day the Pope was sitting on his throne in a chapel of the Vatican, surrounded by his cardinals who had assembled for the purpose of offering him their congratulations on his elevation to his high dignity. On a sudden, the shouts of an angry multitude penetrated to the conclave, intermingled with the strokes of axes and hammers on the doors. Very soon a band of soldiers burst into the hall, who tore away from his finger his pontifical ring, and hurried him off, a prisoner, through a hall, the walls of which were adorned with a fresco, representing the armed satellites of the Papacy, on St. Bartholomew's-day, as bathing their swords in the blood of unoffending women and helpless children. Thus it might seem as if he were to be reminded that the same God who visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation, had made him the victim of His retributive justice for a deed of atrocity which had long been crying aloud to Him for vengeance." --

p 59 -- "Epochs of the Papacy," pp. 449, 450. London: 1881. TOP

Rev. Joseph Rickaby, an English Jesuit, writes:

"When, in 1797, Pope Pius VI fell grievously ill, Napoleon gave orders that in the event of his death no successor should be elected to his office, and that the Papacy should be discontinued.

"But the Pope recovered. The peace was soon broken; Berthier entered Rome on the 10th February, 1798, and proclaimed a republic. The aged Pontiff refused to violate his oath by recognizing it, and was hurried from prison to prison in France. . . . No wonder that half Europe thought Napoleon's veto would be obeyed, and that with the Pope the Papacy was dead." -- " The Modern Papacy," p. 1. London: Catholic Truth Society.

Rev. George Trevor, Canon of York, writes of this eventful year:

"The object of the French Directory was the destruction of the pontifical government, as the irreconcilable enemy of the republic. . . . The aged pope was summoned to surrender the temporal government; on his refusal, he was dragged from the altar. . . . His rings were torn from his fingers, and finally, after declaring the temporal power abolished, the victors carried the pope prisoner into Tuscany, whence he never returned (1798).

"The Papal States, converted into the Roman Republic, were declared to be in perpetual alliance with France, but the French general was the real master of Rome. . . . The territorial possessions 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," pp. 439, 440. London: 1868.

An English secular writer, John Adolphus, says of 1798:

p 60 -- "The downfall of the papal government, by whatever means effected, excited perhaps less sympathy than that of any other in Europe: the errors, the oppressions, the tyranny of Rome over the whole Christian world, were remembered with bitterness; many rejoiced, through religious antipathy, in the overthrow of a church which they considered as idolatrous, though attended with the immediate triumph of infidelity; and many saw in these events the accomplishment of prophecies, and the exhibition of signs promised in the most mystical parts of the Holy Scriptures." -- "History of France from 1790-1802," Vol. II, p. 379. London: 1803.

God's prophetic clock had set the year 1798 as the end of the papal supremacy, and when that hour struck, the mighty ruler on the Tiber, before whose anathemas the kings and emperors of Europe had so long trembled, went "into captivity" (Revelation 13: 10), and his government in the Papal States was abolished. Thus the historical events fit exactly into the mold of prophecy, and establish the fact that " we have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn." 2 Peter 1: 19. But prophecy foretells that this "deadly wound" would be healed, and that the world once more, for a brief moment, would follow the papal power. (Revelation 13: 3.) In the following chapter we shall consider the other specifications of this remarkable prophecy. TOP




p 61 --The little horn was to "speak great words against the Most High." Daniel 7: 25. We shall now quote a few extracts from authentic Roman Catholic sources showing the fulfillment of this prophetic utterance: Pope Leo XIII in his "Great Encyclical Letters " says: " We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." -- P. 304. In this encyclical the pope has capitalized all pronouns referring to himself and to God.

In a large, authentic work by F. Lucii Ferraris, called "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica Juridica Moralis Theologica, " printed at Rome, 1890, and sanctioned by the Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. VI, p. 48), we find the following statements regarding the power of the pope:

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

"Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions. . . .

"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. . . .

"The Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been entrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom." -- Quoted in " Source Book," (Revised Edition) pp. 409, 410. Washington, D. C.: 1927.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the pope:

"The sentences which he gives are to be forthwith ratified in heaven." -- Vol. XII, art. "Pope," p. 265.

p 62 -- Pope Leo XIII says:

"But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself." -- " The Great Encyclical Letters," p. 193.

We leave it with the reader to decide whether or not these are "great words." St. Alphonsus de Liguori, a sainted doctor of the Roman church, claims the same power for the Roman priests. He says:

"The priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests. . . . The Sovereign Master of the universe only follows the servant by confirming in heaven all that the latter decides upon earth." -- " Dignity and Duties of the Priest," pp. 27, 28. New York: Benziger Brothers., Printers to the Holy Apostolic See, 1888. TOP

"Innocent III has written: 'Indeed, it is not too much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods."' -- Id., p. 36.

These must truly be called "great words"!


The little horn was also to "wear out the saints of the Most High." Daniel 7: 25. That is, it was to persecute them till they were literally worn out. Has the Papacy fulfilled this part of the prophecy? In order to do Roman Catholics no injustice, we shall quote from unquestioned authorities among them. And, since they persecute people for "heresy," we must first let them define what they mean by "heresy." In the New Catholic Dictionary, published by the Universal Knowledge Foundation, a Roman Catholic institution, New York, 1929, we read:

"Heresy (Gr., hairesis, choice), deciding for oneself what one shall believe and practise. " -- Art. "Heresy," p. 440.

p 63 -- According to this definition any one who will not blindly submit to papal authority, but will read the Bible, deciding for himself what he shall believe, is a "heretic." What official stand has the Catholic Church taken in regard to such heretics? This we find stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia in the following words:

"In the Bull 'Ad exstirpanda' (1252) Innocent IV says: 'When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podesta or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them.' . . . Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions 'Commissis nobis' and 'Inconsutibilem tunicam.' The aforesaid Bull 'Ad exstirpanda' remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicolas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to be noted that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from excommunication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy. " -- Vol. VIII,p.34.*

This Encyclopedia was printed in 1910, and bears the sanction of the Catholic authorities, and of their "censor," so that here is up-to-date authority showing that the Roman church sanctions persecution. The Roman church here acknowledges, that, when she was in power, she forced the civil government to burn those whom she termed heretics, and the government officials who failed to execute her laws, became

* -- See also "Dictionary of the Inquisition," in " Illustrations of Popery," J. P. Challender, pp. 377-386, New York, 1838; and "History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages," Vol. I. pp. 337 338, New York, 1888.

p 64 -- heretics by that neglect, and suffered the punishment of heretics. Professor Alfred Baudrillart, a Roman Catholic scholar in France, who is now a Catholic Cardinal, says:

"The Catholic Church is a respecter of conscience and of liberty. . . . She has, and she loudly proclaims that she has, a 'horror of blood.' Nevertheless when confronted by heresy she does not content herself with persuasion; arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient, and she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture. She creates tribunals like those of the Inquisition, she calls the laws of the State to her aid, if necessary she encourages a crusade, or a religious war and all her 'horror of blood' practically culminates into urging the secular power to shed it, which proceeding is almost more odious -- for it is less frank -- than shedding it herself. Especially did she act thus in the sixteenth century with regard to Protestants. Not content to reform morally, to preach by example, to convert people by eloquent and holy missionaries, she lit in Italy, in the Low Countries, and above all in Spain the funeral piles of the Inquisition. In France under Francis I and Henry II, in England under Mary Tudor, she tortured the heretics, whilst both in France and Germany during the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century if she did not actually begin, at any rate she encouraged and actively aided, the religious wars. No one will deny that we have here a great scandal to our contemporaries. . . .

"Indeed, even among our friends and our brothers we find those who dare not look this problem in the face. They ask permission from the Church to ignore or even deny all those acts and institutions in the past which have made orthodoxy compulsory. " * -- "The Catholic Church, the Renaissance, and Protestantism," pp. 182-184. London: 1908. This book bears the sanction of the Roman Catholic authorities, and of their "censor."

Andrew Steinmetz says: "Catholics easily account for their devotion to the Holy See,

* -- This explains why some Catholic authors deny that their church ever persecuted. TOP

p 65 -- in spite of its historical abominations, which, however, very few of them are aware of -- their accredited histories in common use, 'with permission of authority,' veiling the subject with painful dexterity." -- " History of the Jesuits," Vol. 1, p. 13. London: 1848.

Dr. C. H. Lea says:

"In view of the unvarying policy of the Church during the three centuries under consideration, and for a century and a half later, there is a typical instance of the manner in which history is written to order, in the quiet assertion of the latest Catholic historian of the Inquisition that 'the Church took no part in the corporal punishment of heretics."' -- " History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages," Vol. 1, p. 540. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1888.

Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) made the following decree for the destruction of all heretics, which is binding on civil rulers:

"Temporal princes shall be reminded and exhorted, and if needs be, compelled by spiritual censures, to discharge every one of their functions: and that, as they desire to be reckoned and held faithful, so, for the defence of the faith, let them publicly make oath that they will endeavor, bona fide with all their might, to extirpate from their territories all heretics marked by the Church; so that when anyone is about to assume any authority, whether spiritual or temporal, he shall be held bound to confirm his title by this oath. And if a temporal prince, being required and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his kingdom from this heretical pravity, the metropolitan and other provincial bishops shall bind him in fetters of excommunication; and if he obstinately refuse to make satisfaction this shall be notified within a year to the Supreme Pontiff, that then he may declare his subjects absolved from their allegiance, and Ieave their lands to be occupied by Catholics, who, the heretics being exterminated, may possess them unchallenged, and preserve them in the purity of the faith." -- "Decretalium Gregorii Papae Noni Conpilatio," Liber V, Titulus VII, Capitulum XIII,

p 66 -- (A Collection of the Decretals of Gregory IX, Book 5, Title 7, Chapter 13), dated April 20, 1619.

The sainted Catholic doctor, Thomas Aquinas, says:

"If counterfeiters of money or other criminals are justly delivered over to death forthwith by the secular authorities, much
more can heretics, after they are convicted of heresy, be not only forthwith excommunicated, but as surely put to death." -- "Summa Theologica," 2a, 2ae, qu. XI, art. iii.

That this principle is sanctioned by modern Catholic priests, we can see from the following statement:

"The church has persecuted. Only a tyro in church history will deny that. . . . Protestants were persecuted in France and Spain with the full approval of the church authorities. We have always defended the persecution of the Huguenots, and the Spanish Inquisition." -- " Western Watchman," official organ of Father Phelan. St. Louis, Mo.: Dec. 24, 1908.

We have now seen from the "decretals" of popes, from sainted doctors of the Roman church, and from authentic Catholic books, that they sanction and defend persecution, and history amply bears out the fact. Dr. J. Dowling says:

"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." -- " History of Romanism," pp. 541, 542. New York: 1871.

W. E. H. Lecky says:

"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 competent 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 power of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings." -- " History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism

p 67 -- in Europe," Vol. II, p. 32. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1910.

John Lothrop Motley, speaking of papal persecution in the Netherlands, says:

"Upon February 16, 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office [the Inquisition] condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. . . . A proclamation of the king, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution. . . . This is probably the most concise death warrant that was ever framed. Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines." -- " The Rise of the Dutch Republic," (2-vol. Ed.) Vol. I, p. 626. New York.

Many Roman Catholic authors today have tried to prove that their church does not sanction persecution, but facts of history are too plain to be denied. Eternity alone will reveal what God's dear children suffered during the Dark Ages. Accordingly as the Papacy attained to power, the common people became more oppressed, until "the noon of the Papacy 'was the midnight of the world." -- " History of Protestantism," J. A. Wylie, LL.D., Vol. I, p. 16. London.


But Daniel 7: 25 has still another prediction concerning the "little horn"; namely, that it should "think to change times and laws," or as the Revised Version has it: "times and the law." James Moffatt's translation reads: "He shall plan to alter the sacred seasons and the law." Now, as the two preceding statements in this verse depict what the Papacy should do against the Most High, we must conclude that it is also the "times and the law" of the Most High which the Papacy should attempt to change. This could not refer to the ceremonial laws of the Jews, which were abolished at the cross (Ephesians 2: 15; Hebrews 9: 9,10), but to the Ten Commandments, which are binding in the Christian era, to which dispensation this prophecy applies. (Matthew 5: 17-19; 19: 16-19; Luke 16: 17; Romans 3: 31; 7: 7,

p 68 -- 12, 14; James 2: 10, 11.) From the prophecy of Daniel 7: 25 it is therefore evident that the Papacy would attempt to make some changes in the moral law. TOP

After the worship of images had crept into the church during the fourth to the sixth centuries, its leaders finally removed the second commandment from their doctrinal books, because it forbids us to bow down to images (Exodus 20: 4, 5), and they divided the tenth, so as to retain ten in number. Thus the Catholic Church has two commandments against coveting, while Paul six times speaks of it as only one " commandment. " (Romans 7: 7-13.) Then, too, the Lord has purposely reversed the order of the supposed ninth and tenth commandments in Deuteronomy 5: 21 to what they are in Exodus 20: 17, so that the Catholics, following Deuteronomy 5: 21, have "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife " as their ninth commandment, while the Lutherans, following Exodus 20: 17, have it as part of their tenth commandment, and their ninth command is: " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house." Thus we see how people get themselves into trouble when they attempt to change the law of God.

The Papacy was also to change times. But the only commandment of the ten that has to do with time is the fourth, which commands us to keep holy the seventh day, on which God rested at creation. (Exodus 20: 10, 11; Genesis 2: 1-3.) It is a remarkable fact that Christ, His apostles, and their followers kept the seventh day in common with the Jews (Mark 6: 2, 3; Luke 4: 16, 31; 23: 52-56; Acts 13: 42, 44; 16: 12, 13; 17: 2; 18: 1-4), and that the New Testament is entirely silent in regard to any change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. This would be natural enough if the original Sabbath, which they were then keeping, should continue. But if a new day was to take its place in the Christian church, its Founder would certainly have given explicit directions for its observance. Yet not a word was spoken by Christ or His apostles, either before or after His resurrection, as to such a change.

It is another remarkable fact that Sunday, is never called by any sacred title in the New Testament, but always referred to as

p 69 -- a weekday, never as a holy day. It is classed as one of the weekdays, being called "the first day of the week."

And yet we find the Christian world generally keeping it. Who made this change, when it is not recorded in the Bible? When, how, and why was it made? Who dared to lay hands on Jehovah's law, and change His Holy Sabbath, without any warrant of Scripture?

All Protestant denominations disclaim any part in this crime. But the Roman Catholic Church boasts of having made this change, and even points to it as an evidence of its authority to act in Christ's stead upon earth. We shall therefore ask her two pointed questions: 1. -- When did you change the Sabbath? 2. -- Why did you do it? Here are her answers:

"The first proposition needs little proof. The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her Divine mission changed the day from Saturday to Sunday." -- "The Christian Sabbath," p. 29. Baltimore, Md.: "Catholic Mirror," Sept. 23, 1893. TOP

"Ques. -- Which is the Sabbath day? Ans.-Saturday is the Sabbath day.

"Ques. -- Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

"Ans.-We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the council of Laodicea (A. D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. . . .

"The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her." -- "The Convert's Catechism of Christian Doctrine," Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R., p. 50. St. Louis, Mo.: 1934. (This work received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X, Jan. 25,1910.)

"The Church . . . took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday. . . . And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated ho Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus." -- " Catholic World," (New York), March, 1894, p. 809.

We shall enter into this subject more thoroughly in the following chapters.


p 70 -- Those who oppose the Bible Sabbath center their attack on three points, claiming (1) that the Sabbath was not instituted at creation, and hence is not an original law for the whole human family; (2) that the Sabbath commandment is not a moral command as the other nine, but was a part of the Jewish ceremonial law; (3) that Christ or the apostles abolished the Sabbath, and gradually substituted the first day of the week in its place. We shall now test these propositions one by one.


God the Father has always worked through His Son, both in creation and in redemption. (Genesis 1: 26; Hebrews 1: 1, 2, 8-10; John 3: 16.) Therefore it was Christ who created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day. "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. . . . He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not." John 1: 3, 10. (Compare Colossians 1: 14 -18.) It is a great comfort to a poor, weak sinner to know that our Saviour is "the Mighty God" (Isaiah 9: 6) who spoke the worlds into existence (Psalm 33: 6, 9), and who is "upholding all things by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1: 3). His word has creative power, and if we receive it by faith, it will change our hearts and lives, and give us victory over sin. (John 1: 12; Genesis 1: 3; 2 Corinthians 4: 5, 6; Matthew 5: 16; Isaiah 60: 1.)

As the crowning act on the sixth day, the Lord made man in His own image, and then He "rested on the seventh day" from a "finished" work. (Genesis 1: 27, 31; 2:1-3.) Thus the seventh day stood as a memorial and reminder of a finished work in Christ. And when man lost the image of God through sin,

p 71 -- Christ came to restore in man that divine image by a new creation (Colossians 3: 10; Ephesians 4: 24; 2: 10; 2 Corinthians 5: 17.) On the cross He cried out: "It is finished." John 19:30. (See Hebrews 10: 14.) This was on Friday evening, and He rested on the Sabbath day from the work of redemption, just as He had originally rested on it from the work of creation. (Luke 23: 52 -56.) Thus the seventh-day Sabbath is Christ's memorial of redemption as well as of the creation. (Ezekiel 20: 12,; Hebrews 13: 8. See "The Great Controversy," p. 769.) And both events were for the whole human race, and not for the Jews only. TOP

Christ says: "The Sabbath was made for man." Mark 2:27. And therefore it was made when man was created. "So God created man in His own image . . . . And the evening and the morning were the sixth day . . . . And He rested on the seventh day. . . . And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it." Genesis 1: 27, 31; 2: 2, 3. This was two thousand years before Abraham (the first Jew) was born, therefore the Sabbath could not be Jewish. But, as Christ says, it was "made for man," and the term " man" is not confined to any one race, but embraces all mankind.

We are not alone in believing that the Sabbath was instituted at creation, as the following quotations from leading men in different denominations show:. F. C. Cook, M. A., Canon of Exeter, says:

"'And God blessed the seventh day.' The natural interpretation of these words is that the blessing of the Sabbath was immediately consequent on the first creation of man, for whom the Sabbath was made (Mark 2:27). It has been urged from the silence concerning its observance by the patriarchs, that no Sabbatic ordinance was really given until the promulgation of the law, and that this passage in Genesis is not historical but anticipatory. There are several objections, which seem fatal to this theory." -- "The Holy Bible, with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary by Bishops and Clergy of the Anglican Church ", Vol. I, p. 37. New York: 1875.

Thomas Hamilton, D. D., in his Five-Hundred-Dollar

p 72 -- Prize Essay, meets this objection to the historicity of Genesis in the following forceful way:

"Palcy . . . says: 'The words [of Genesis 2: 1-3] do not assert that God then blessed and sanctified the seventh day.' . . . But such an interpretation really amounts to an interpolation. It alters the passage. . . . Once admit such a mode of dealing with Scripture, or of dealing with any other book, and we may bid farewell to certainty regarding any author's meaning. . . . No history could stand if subjected to such treatment. The plainest and most unvarnished statements might be so twisted and distorted as to bear a meaning the exact contrary to that intended by its author. . . .

"It is not only said God 'rested,' but He 'blessed,' the day and 'sanctified' it. . . . If all this do [sic.] Not amount to the institution of a weekly Sabbath for man in all time coming. . . . we fail to see what intelligible meaning or purpose is to be extracted from the narrative." -- " Our Rest Day," pp. 10-15, New edition. Edinburgh: 1888. TOP

Dr. Martin Luther says on this text:

"God blessed the Sabbath and sanctified it to Himself. It is moreover to be remarked that God did this to no other creature. God did not sanctify to Himself the heaven nor the earth nor any other creature. But God did sanctify to Himself the seventh day. This was especially designed of God, to cause us to understand that the 'seventh day' is to be especially devoted to divine worship. . . .

"It follows therefore from this passage, that if Adam had stood in his innocence and had not fallen he would yet have observed the 'seventh day' as sanctified, holy and sacred. . . . Nay, even after the fall he held the 'seventh day' sacred; that is, he taught on that day his own family. This is testified by the offerings made by his two sons, Cain and Abel. The Sabbath therefore has, from the beginning of the world, been set apart for the worship of God. . . . For all these things are implied and signified in the expression 'sanctified.'

"Although therefore man lost the knowledge of God by sin,

p 73 -- yet God willed that this command concerning the sanctifying of the Sabbath should remain. He willed that on the seventh day both the word should be preached, and also those other parts of His worship performed which He Himself instituted." -- "Commentary on Genesis," Vol. 1, pp. 138-140, translation by Professor J. N. Lenker, D. D., Minneapolis: 1904; and also " Copious Explanation of Genesis," Vol. I, pp. 62, 63. Christiania: 1863.

The following words from a distinguished Hebrew scholar are worthy of note here:

"'Finished.' To finish a work, in Hebrew conception, is to cease from it, to have done with it. On the seventh day. The seventh day is distinguished from all the preceding days by being itself the subject of the narrative. In the absence of any work on this day, the Eternal is occupied with the day itself, and does four things in reference to it. First, He ceased from His work which He had made. Secondly, He rested. . . . Thirdly, He blessed the seventh day. . . . In the fourth place, He hallowed it or set it apart to a holy rest. . . .

"The present record is a sufficient proof that the original institution was never forgotten by man. . . .

"Incidental traces of the keeping of the Sabbath are found in the record of the Deluge, when the sacred writer has occasion to notice short intervals of time. The measurement of time by weeks then appears (Genesis 8: 10, 12). The same division of time again comes up in the history of Jacob (Genesis 29: 27, 28). This unit of measure is traceable to nothing but the institution of the seventh-day rest." -- "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Genesis with a New Translation," J. G. Murphy, D. D., T. C. D. (Professor of Hebrew, Belfast), pp. 70, 71. Andover: 1866. TOP

Dr. J. P. Lange says: "The expression, He hallowed it, must be for man, for all men who were to be on the earth.

"If we had no other passage than this of Genesis 2: 3 there would be no difficulty in deducing from it a precept for the universal observance of a Sabbath, or the seventh day, to be devoted to God, as holy time, by all of that race for whom the

p 74 -- earth and its nature were especially prepared. The first man must have known it. The words 'He hallowed it,' can have no meaning otherwise. They would be a blank unless in reference to some who were required to keep it holy." -- " Commentary on the Holy Scriptures," John Peter Lange, D. D., Vol. I, pp. 196, 197. New York: 1884.

Dr. M. W. Jacobus, Professor George Bush, and C. 0. Rosenius, and others forcefully emphasize the same facts. The preceding statements taken from leading men in different denominations need no comment. They state the plain facts of the Bible narrative in their most natural setting.

Another remarkable thing in this connection is the fact that the heathen nations for centuries after the days of Noah retained the seventh-day Sabbath. The learned Dr. John Kitto says:

"We find from time immemorial the knowledge of a week of seven days among all nations -- Egyptians, Arabians, Indians -- in a word, all the nations of the East, have in all ages made use of this week of seven days, for which it is difficult to account without admitting that this knowledge was derived from the common ancestors of the human race. " -- " Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, " Vol. II, art. "Sabbath," p. 655.

Professor A. H. Sayce declares:

"The Sabbath-rest was a Babylonian, as well as a Hebrew, institution. Its origin went back to pre-Semitic days. . . . In the cuneiform tablets the Sabattu is described as 'a day of rest for the soul,' . . . it was derived by the Assyrian scribes from two Sumerian or pre-Semitic words, sa and bat, which meant respectively 'heart' and 'ceasing.' . . . The rest enjoined on the Sabbath was thus as complete as it was among the Jews." -- "Higher Criticism and the Monuments," pp. 74, 75. TOP

During their servitude in Egypt, the majority of the Jews evidently worked on the Sabbath, just as the rank and file of the Jews do today, but the knowledge of it was retained then as now, and it was kept holy by a faithful few. Besides other evidences, we see this from the fact that, thirty days after they left

p 75 -- Egypt, and more than two weeks before the law was given on Sinai, God tested the people on Sabbath-keeping (Exodus 16: 4, 27, 28), which He certainly could not have done, if the Sabbath had not been known among them till the law was given on Sinai. Then, too, God speaks of it as a familiar institution. (Compare Exodus 16: 28 with Genesis 26: 5 and 2: 3.) The fourth commandment itself points back to creation and commands us to "remember the Sabbath day" on which He rested at the close of creation week. (Exodus 20: 8, 11.) No human logic can therefore explain away the historical facts that the Sabbath was set apart for man at creation.


Some claim that the Sabbath commandment does not enforce the observance of the seventh day of the week, but only the seventh part of our time, the particular day being left to our choice. But nothing could be more contradictory to the plain wording of the commandment. If God's commands and promises are to be so construed as to mean the very opposite of what they state, then we may bid farewell to all certainty and comfort derived from the Scriptures. God commands us to keep, not a seventh, but the seventh, day, on which He rested, the day He blessed and sanctified. (Exodus 20: 10, 11.) The Sabbath rests on a historical event that cannot be changed to another day, any more than our birthday can be changed.

In regard to the claim that the Sabbath commandment is not moral as the other nine, but ceremonial, it needs only to be said that there is no statement to that effect in the whole Bible, and it would involve its advocates in the most serious difficulty. All through the Bible a clear distinction is maintained between the two laws, the moral and the ceremonial. God spoke the Ten Commandments to the people directly, "and He added no more " (Deuteronomy 5: 22); He engraved them on two tables of stone (Exodus 32:16; Deuteronomy 9: 10); and had them laid "in the ark " (Deuteronomy 10: 5; 1 Kings -8: 9). But ceremonial law of ordinances was spoken to the people by

p 76 -- Moses, was written by him "in a book," and laid beside the ark. (Exodus 21: 1; 24: 3, 4, 7; Deuteronomy 31: 24-26. * ) Now we respectfully ask: Would any one claim that God did not understand the difference between moral and ceremonial laws, and hence wrote a ceremonial command into the very bosom of His moral law, the Decalogue? Such an accusation of God would be preposterous, and yet, this is what the above claim necessarily implies! We must therefore conclude that all the Ten Commandments are moral, which practically all the leading religious denominations teach in their confessions of faith.


Christ came to lift people out of the degradation of sin, not to leave them in sin. He received the name "JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins." Matthew 1: 21. And sin is the transgression of the law." I John 3: 4. The law here referred to is the moral law of the Ten Commandments. (Romans 7: 7, 12; James 2: 10, 11.) Christ firmly refuted the idea that He was to abolish any part of God's law. He says: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law. . . . For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." Matthew 5: 17, 18. Christ was to "magnify the law, and make it honorable." Isaiah 42: 21. And this He did, for He freed it from all the traditions and additions of men. (Matthew 15: 3, 6, 9, 13.) The Pharisees had burdened down the Sabbath with hundreds of man-made regulations. All these Jesus swept away, and restored it to its original purpose, that it should be a blessing, a sacred "delight" to God's people. (Isaiah 58: 13.) But He never made any change in the day. He kept it Himself, and taught His followers to do the same. (Luke 4: 16, 31; Matthew 24: 20; 12: 11, 12.) TOP


The Lord gave His Sabbath to man as a weekly reminder of Christ's sanctifying and keeping power, because man needed this

* -- The English and American Revised Versions, the Jewish, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish versions render Deuteronomy 31: 26, "by the side of the ark." Others render it " at the side of the ark," and " beside the ark."

p 77 -- reminder. (Ezekiel 20: 12.) But Satan has always,tried to blot out all memory of the true God from the earth, and to draw man's allegiance and worship to himself through idolatry. (I Corinthians 10: 20.) He has therefore made relentless efforts to pull down God's Sabbatic flag, and to trample it in the mire. We have seen that for a long time after the descendants of Noah had dispersed over the earth they retained the knowledge of the Sabbath. This was true even after they went into idolatry. Egypt was the first among the heathen nations to attempt to suppress the seventh-day Sabbath, and influenced other nations to regard the first day as the weekly holiday of their sun-god. Truels Lund gives us the following information on this important and interesting subject of the week in Egypt, in his extensive work:

"According to the Assyrian-Babylonian conception, the particular stress lay necessarily upon the number seven. . . . The whole week pointed prominently towards the seventh day, the feast day, the rest day, in this day it collected, in this it also consummated. 'Sabbath' is derived from both 'rest' and 'seven.' With the Egyptians it was the reverse. . . . For them on the contrary the sun-god was the beginning and origin of all things. The day of the Sun, Sunday, therefore, became necessarily for them the feast day. . . . The holiday was transferred from the last to the first day of the week." -- "Daglige Liv i Norden," Vol. XIII, pp. 54, 55.

" The seven planetary names of the days were at the close of the second century A. D., prevailing everywhere in the Roman Empire .. . . This astrology originated in Egypt, where Alexandria now so loudly proclaimed it to all. . . . 'The day of the Sun' was the Lord's day, the chiefest and first of the week. The evil and fatal Saturn's day was the last of the week, on which none could celebrate a feast. . . .

"From Rome, through the Roman legionaries, the seven planetary days pressed farther north to Gaul, Britain, and Germany. Everywhere . . . people yielded respectfully to the astrology in its popular form: the doctrine concerning the

p 78 -- Sun-day with its fortune, the Moon-day with its alternative play, and the filthy, unlucky Saturday. . . . As a concentrated troop the planetary appellations and names of heathen deities stood on guard, when later Christianity reached Europe, and attempted to displace them. . . .

"For the Christians the lot was cast by the reception of the . . . day of the sun. Not till they themselves had later gained power were they awakened to doubt. . . . And the heathen names of the days seemed at variance with Christian faith." -- Id., pp. 91, 92, 110. TOP

The London Anglican rector, T. H. Morer, says of Sunday:

"It is not to be denied but we borrow the name of this day from the ancient Greeks and Romans, and we allow that the old Egyptians worshiped the sun, and as a standing memorial of their veneration, dedicated this day to him. And we find by the influence of their example, other nations, and among them the Jews themselves, doing him homage." -- "Six Dialogues on the Lord's Day," p. 22. London: 1701.

Thus we see how Satan, through heathenism, tried to stigmatize the Sabbath of Jehovah and to elevate Sunday as a joyful day. The Egyptians worshiped their sun-god under the name of Osiris, and the Apis bull (the golden calf made at Horeb) was a representation of him. This worship was conducted by turning to the rising sun. (Ezekiel 8: 16.) Therefore the Lord ordered the tabernacle always to be pitched with the front toward the east, so that the people, worshiping before it, had turn to their backs upon sun worship. (Numbers 3: 23. See also Exodus 26: 22; 36: 27, 32 in American Revised Version, and Jeremiah 32: 33.) Talbot W. Chambers, D. D., says that sun worship was "the oldest, the most widespread, and the most enduring of all forms of idolatry known to man."

"The universality of this form of idolatry is something remarkable. It seems to have prevailed everywhere. The chief object of worship among the Syrians was Baal-the sun. . . . In Egypt the sun was the kernel of the state religion." -- " The Old Testament Student," pp. 193, 194. January, 1886.

p 79 -- In Babylon the sun-god was called Bel, in Phoenicia and Palestine, Baal, and Sunday was "the wild solar holiday of all pagan times. " -- " North British Review," Vol. XVIII, p. 409.

Rev. W. H. Poole says:

"The first and principal idol was the sun -- the glorious luminary of the day. . . . Baal was the great sun-god of all the East. With our Israelitish ancestors the sun-god came west. His day is our Sunday. Every time you name our Sabbath-day Sunday you are reminded of our great, great, great grandfathers' principal deity." -- "Anglo-Israel in Nine Lectures," pp. 389,390. Detroit, Mich.: 1889.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says of the worship of Baal: "As the sun-god he is conceived as the male principle of life and reproduction in nature, and thus in some forms of his worship is the patron of the grossest sensuality, and even of systematic prostitution. An example of this is found in the worship of Baal-Peor (Numbers 26). " -- Vol. III, (New American ed., Werner Co.), art. "Baal," p. 175.

This sun worship was the greatest of all abominations to God (Ezekiel 8: 13-16), and the warnings to Israel have great significance to us today: "I will visit upon her the days of Baalim, wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgat Me, saith the Lord." Hosea 2: 13. (See also I Corinthians 10: 11.)

When we remember that it was Christ who took Israel out of Egypt (Hebrews 11: 26, 27; 1 Corinthians 10: 4), and who labored so earnestly to turn them away from sun worship and Sunday-keeping, and that it was Satan who always led them into this idolatry, we ask with all candor: Could any one suppose that Christ, in the New Testament, has exchanged places with Satan, so that He is now leading people to keep Sunday while the devil is leading them to keep the Sabbath of Jehovah? Every thoughtful person must say with the Apostle Paul: "God forbid." Romans 3:31.

To continue this book CLICK Step 5 (Part 2 of 4) - Facts of Faith



©2001-2017  TOP