(Revised) Copyright, 1943
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.
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.
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.
VII -- Contents - listed on left.
p 8 -- Blank
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.
INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE
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
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,"
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.
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."
VERSUS THE BIBLE
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
sometimes even forbid the use of the Bible in the vernacular."
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.
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:
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.
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
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.
REFORMATION AND THE BIBLE
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.
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
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
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.' . . .
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.
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.
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
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
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.
presses were kept busy printing the Scriptures, while colporteurs
and booksellers sold them to the eager public. The effect
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
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.
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.
. . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
many thousands of invaluable manuscripts thus perished in
the flames of the Inquisition, eternity alone will reveal.
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,
funeral piles were lit all over Europe. Samuel Smiles says
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.
attempts continued to be made by Rome to check the progress
of printing. In 1599  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.
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.
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."
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.
says 70,000 were slain, though other writers estimate the
victims at 100,000." -- "The Huguenots," Samuel
Smiles, pp. 71, 72.
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.
LINES OF ATTACK
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.
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.
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.
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.
19 -- Bible, which had been preserved
in its apostolic purity, was brought to the Reformers.*
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.
LATIN VULGATE BIBLE
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:
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:
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,
their feelings against Protestant books, such permits
could not have been given, unless the superiority
of the book demanded it.
20 -- manuscripts)."
-- "Introduction to the Old Testament," Sec. 62,
63. (Quoted in "History of Romanism," Dr. John Dowling,
ed. of 1871, p. 486.)
Catholic Encyclopedia says of the Latin Vulgate
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."
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.
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.
Catholic Encyclopedia comments:
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.
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
Thomas James, in the following statement, gives valuable
information on the Vulgate Bible:
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.
Catholic Encyclopedia says of the latest revision
of the Vulgate by Pope Clement:
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.
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
"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
22 -- have had a much better critical text than we now
possess." -- "Forum," August, 1926, p.203. TOP
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.
S. Buchanan, M. A., B. Sc., says of Jerome's translation:
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. . . .
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.
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:
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
23 -- truly and catholicly translated, was but sparingly
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
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
-- 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.
-- 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
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. *
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.
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
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?
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.'
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
by Revelation 22: 14, P. P. Bliss, musician assisting D.
L. Moody, wrote the hymn:
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."
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
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,
UNDERMINES THE PROTESTANT FOUNDATIONS
26 -- The second, and more effective,
weapon Rome used against the Reformation was "higher
criticism," in an effort to undermine the very foundation
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.
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.
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. . . .
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
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.
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:
Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants!
. . .
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.
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. . . .
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
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.)
UNDERMINING PROTESTANT FOUNDATIONS
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
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.
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.")
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.
of R. D. Dickinson,
1935, No. 462, p. 10, book No. 167.
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
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. . . .
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.
31 -- Can anyone wonder at what
Dr. Charles Jefferson declares? He says:
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.
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.
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.
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
Christian Register for June 18, 1891, page 389,
commenting favorably on the work of higher criticism, says:
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."
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
Prophetic History of the World
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).
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.
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
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
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.)
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
regard to these ten kingdoms, Sir Isaac Newton says:
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,
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.
) 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
did the reign and legislation of Theodosius mark out the
lines of future relationship between Pope and Emperor."
Id., p. 187.
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.
Heruli under Odoacer had established themselves in Italy,
476 A. D.; and while this Arian king ruled all his subjects
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
just such an opportunity soon presented itself:
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.
interference in the Papal election has cast into the Roman
Church the seed of a deep and threatening distrust towards
him." -- Id., p. 147.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.)
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
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.
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.
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
41 -- Procopius, the historian who followed Justinian's
"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,
the churches of these so-called heretics, especially those
belonging to the Arian dissenters, were almost incredibly
wealthy " -- Id., p. 121.
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.,
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.
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
42 -- the 70,000 Asiatics the white garments for their
baptism and a piece of money."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Justinian never intended to keep his solemn oath to grant
them liberty, and the people soon found Rome the severest
of tyrants. TOP
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:
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.
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.
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."
we have one sample out of many in history as to what kind
of religious liberty Rome grants wherever she obtains the
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
45-- in Italy, brought peace, prosperity, and happiness
to all classes. J. G. Sheppard, D. D., says:
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
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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
. . . 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,
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
the King of Italy, at first maintained something
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
[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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
49 -- great kingdom of the Ostrogoths." -- " Fall
of Rome," J. G. ,b(j)pard, p. 306. London: 1892.
occurred a singular phenomenon -- the annihilation and disappearance
of a great and powerful people from the world's history."
-- Id., p. 307.
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.
last of the three Arian "horns" of Daniel 7: 8 had passed
away, and with it passed also the liberty of the common
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.
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:
the century which intervened between the death of Gregory
I [604 A. D.] and the accession of Gregory II  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
50 -- History," Vol.
II, p. 694. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1913.
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.
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).
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.
. . .
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.
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
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.
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.
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
"A TIME, AND TIMES, AND HALF A TIME"
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:
-- 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
-- History states that the work of Justin and Justinian
in elevating the Papacy to power brought on a new era, introducing
the Middle Ages:
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.
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.
. . .
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
53 -- Middle Ages." -- " Greece
Under the Romans," George Finlay, pp. 198, 240,
Dent edition, revised by author, 1877. TOP
-- 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.
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:
this reason A. Bower says:
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.
[Silverius'] death happened on the 20th of June 538.".
-- Id., p. 488.
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.
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.
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
. . .
we request your paternal affection, that you, by your letters,
inform Us and the Most Holy Bishop of this Fair
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
this letter Pope John II answered:
"John, Bishop of the City of Rome, to his most Illustrious
and Merciful Son Justinian.
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 . . .
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. . . .
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. . . .
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.' . . .
favor of Our Lord . . . remain forever with you, Most Pious
Son, Amen. . . .
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.
of these letters appear in the "Code of Justinian,"
as well as the following law: "Concerning the Precedence
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
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.
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. . . .
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.
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." --
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.
OF THE 1260 YEARS
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:
official Swedish newspaper, Stockholms Posttidning,
for March 29, 1798, has the following news item:
"Rome, the 21st of Feb. , 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. . . .
. . . 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. . . .
Pius! He must have felt very sad as he left Rome to go into
captivity. When he departed his tear-filled eyes were turned
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. . . .
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.
R. Pennington, M. A., F. R. Hist. Soc., says of this event:
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."
59 -- "Epochs of the Papacy," pp. 449, 450.
London: 1881. TOP
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
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).
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.
English secular writer, John Adolphus, says of 1798:
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:
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
OTHER MARKS OF IDENTITY
"HE SHALL SPEAK
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
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:
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. .
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.
Catholic Encyclopedia says of the pope:
sentences which he gives are to be forthwith ratified in
heaven." -- Vol. XII, art. "Pope," p. 265.
62 -- Pope Leo XIII says:
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.
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
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.
must truly be called "great words"!
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,"
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.*
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,
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:
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. . . .
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."
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
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:
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.
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,
66 -- (A
Collection of the Decretals of Gregory IX, Book 5, Title
7, Chapter 13), dated April 20, 1619.
sainted Catholic doctor, Thomas Aquinas, says:
"If counterfeiters of money or other criminals are justly
delivered over to death forthwith by the secular authorities,
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. TOP
this principle is sanctioned by modern Catholic priests,
we can see from the following statement:
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,
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:
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.
E. H. Lecky says:
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
in Europe," Vol. II, p. 32. London: Longmans,
Green, and Co., 1910.
Lothrop Motley, speaking of papal persecution in the Netherlands,
"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.
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.
TO CHANGE TIMES AND LAWS"
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,
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
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.
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.
is another remarkable fact that Sunday, is never called
by any sacred title in the New Testament, but always referred
69 -- a weekday, never
as a holy day. It is classed as one of the weekdays, being
called "the first day of the week."
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?
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:
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.
-- Which is the Sabbath day? Ans.-Saturday is the
-- 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. . . .
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.)
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.
shall enter into this subject more thoroughly in the following
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.
SABBATH AN EDENIC INSTITUTION
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.)
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
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
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.
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:
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:
Hamilton, D. D., in his Five-Hundred-Dollar
72 -- Prize Essay, meets this
objection to the historicity of Genesis in the following
. . . 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. . . .
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
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. . . .
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.'
therefore man lost the knowledge of God by sin,
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.
following words from a distinguished Hebrew scholar are
worthy of note here:
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. . . .
present record is a sufficient proof that the original institution
was never forgotten by man. . . .
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
J. P. Lange says: "The expression, He hallowed it, must
be for man, for all men who were to be on the earth.
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
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:
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.
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:
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.
A. H. Sayce declares:
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
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
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.
SABBATH MORAL OR TYPICAL?
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.
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
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
CHRIST CHANGE THE SABBATH?
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
HATRED OF THE SABBATH
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
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:
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.
. . .
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
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. . . .
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
London Anglican rector, T. H. Morer, says of Sunday:
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:
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
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.
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.
W. H. Poole says:
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.
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.
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.)
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
continue this book CLICK
Step 5 (Part 2 of 4)
- Facts of Faith