Loading...
Thus he said … - That is, in explanation of the fourth symbol which appeared - the fourth beast, and of the events connected with his appearing. This explanation embraces the remainder of the chapter; and as the whole subject appeared difficult and momentous to Daniel before the explanation, so it may be said to be in many respects difficult, and in all respects momentous still. It is a question on which expositors of the Scriptures are by no means agreed, to what it refers, and whether it has been already accomplished, or whether it extends still into the future; and it is of importance, therefore, to determine, if possible, what is its true meaning. The two points of inquiry which are properly before us are, first, What do the words of explanation as used by the angel fairly imply - that is, what, according to the fair interpretation of these words, would be the course of events referred to, or what should we naturally expect to find as actually occurring on the earth in the fulfillment of this? and, secondly, To what events the prophecy is actually to be applied - whether to what has already occurred, or what is yet to occur; whether we can find anything in what is now past which would be an accomplishment of this, or whether it is to be applied to events a part of which are yet future? This will lead us into a statement of the points which it is affirmed would occur in regard to this kingdom: and then into an inquiry respecting the application.
What is fairly implied in the explanation of the angel? This would embrace the following points:
(1) There was to be a fourth kingdom on the earth: “the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,” Daniel 7:23. This was to succeed the other three, symbolized by the lion, the bear, and the leopard. No further reference is made to them, but the characteristics of this are fully stated. Those characteristics, which have been explained in the notes at Daniel 7:7, are, as here repeated,
(a) that it would be in important respects different from the others;
(b) that it would devour, or subdue the whole earth;
(c) that it would tread it down and break it in pieces; that is, it would be a universal dynasty, of a fierce and warlike character, that would keep the whole world subdued and subject by power.
(2) out of this sovereignty or dominion, ten powers would arise Daniel 7:24: “and the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise.” Compare the notes at Daniel 7:7. That is, they would spring out of this one dominion, or it would be broken up into these minor sovereignties, yet all manifestly springing from the one kingdom, and wielding the same power. We should not naturally look for the fulfillment of this in a succession of kings, for that would have been symbolized by the beast itself representing the entire dominion or dynasty, but rather to a number of contemporaneous powers that had somehow sprung out of the one power, or that now possessed and wielded the power of that one dominion. If the kingdom here referred to should be broken up into such a number of powers, or if in any way these powers became possessed of this authority, and wielded it, such a fact would express what we are to expect to find in this kingdom.
(3) From the midst of these sovereignties or kingdoms there was to spring up another one of peculiar characteristics, Daniel 7:24-25. These characteristics are the following:
(a) That it would spring out of the others, or be, as it were, one form of the administration of the same power - as the eleventh horn sprang from the same source as the ten, and we are, therefore, to look for the exercise of this power somehow in connection with the same kingdom or dynasty.
(b) This would not spring up contemporaneously with the ten, but would arise “after them” - and we are to look for the power as in some sense succeeding them.
(c) It would be small at first - as was the horn Daniel 7:8, and we are to look for the fulfillment in some power that would be feeble at first.
(d) It would grow to be a mighty power for the little horn became so powerful as to pluck up three of the others Daniel 7:8, and it is said in the explanation Daniel 7:24, that he would subdue three of the kings.
(e) It would subdue “three kings;” that is, three of the ten, and we are to look for the fulfillment in some manifestation of that power by which, either literally three of them were overthrown, or by which about one-third of their power was taken away. The mention of the exact number of “three,” however, would rather seem to imply that we are to expect some such exact fulfillment, or some prostration of three sovereignties by the new power that would arise.
(f) It would be proud, and ambitious, and particularly arrogant against God: “and he shall speak great words against the Most High,” Daniel 7:25. The Chaldee here rendered against - לצד letsad - means, literally, at, or against the part of it, and then against. Vulgate contra; Greek πρὸς pros This would be fulfilled in one who would blaspheme God directly; or who would be rebellious against his government and authority; or who would complain of his administration and laws; or who would give utterance to harsh and reproachful words against his real claims. It would find a fulfillment obviously in an open opposer of the claims and the authority of the true God; or in one the whole spirit and bearing of whose pretensions might be fairly construed as in fact an utterance of great words against him.
(g) This would be a persecuting power: “and shall wear out the saints of the Most High,” Daniel 7:25. That is, it would be characterized by a persecution of the real saints - of those who were truly the friends of God, and who served him.
(h) It would claim legislative power, the power of changing established customs and laws: “and think to change times and laws,” Daniel 7:25. The word rendered “think” (סבר sebar ) means, more properly, to hope; and the idea here is, that he hopes and trusts to be able to change times and laws. Vulgate, Putabit quod possit mutare tempora, etc. The state of mind here referred to would be that of one who would desire to produce changes in regard to the times and laws referred to, and who would hope that he would be able to effect it. If there was a strong wish to do this, and if there was a belief that in any way he could bring it about, it would meet what is implied in the use of the word here. There would be the exercise of some kind of authority in regard to existing times for festivals, or other occasions, and to existing laws, and there would be a purpose so to change them as to accomplish his own ends.
The word “times” - זמנין zı̂mnı̂yn - would seem to refer properly to some stated or designated times - as times appointed for festivals, etc. Gesenius, “time, specially an appointed time, season:” Ecclesiastes 3:1; Nehemiah 2:6; Esther 9:27, Esther 9:31. Lengerke renders the word Fest-Zeiten - “festival times,” and explains it as meaning the holy times, festival days, Leviticus 23:2, Leviticus 23:4, Leviticus 23:37, Leviticus 23:44. The allusion is, undoubtedly, to such periods set apart as festivals or fasts - seasons consecrated to the services of religion and the kind of jurisdiction which the power here referred to would hope and desire to set up would be to have control of these periods, and so to change and alter them as to accomplish his own purposes - either by abolishing those in existence, or by substituting others in their place. At all times these seasons have had a direct connection with the state and progress of religion; and he who has power over them, either to abolish existing festivals, or to substitute others in their places, or to appoint new festivals, has an important control over the whole subject of religion, and over a nation.
The word rendered “laws” here - דת dâth - while it might refer to any law, would more properly designate laws pertaining to religion. See Daniel 6:5, Daniel 6:7, Daniel 6:12 (Daniel 6:6, Daniel 6:9, Daniel 6:13); Ezra 7:12, Ezra 7:21. So Lengerke explains it as referring to the laws of religion, or to religion. The kind of jurisdiction, therefore, referred to in this place would be what would pertain to the laws and institutions of religion; it would be a purpose to obtain the control of these; it would be a claim of right to abolish such as existed, and to institute new ones; it would be a determination to exert this power in such a way as to promote its own ends.
(i) It would continue for a definite period: “and they shall be given into his hands until a time and times and the dividing of time,” Daniel 7:25. They; that is, either those laws, or the people, the powers referred to. Maurer refers this to the “saints of the Most High,” as meaning that they would be delivered into his hands. Though this is not designated expressly, yet perhaps it is the most natural construction, as meaning that he would have jurisdiction over the saints during this period; and if so, then the meaning is, that he would have absolute control over them, or set up a dominion over them, for the time specified the time, and times, etc. In regard to this expression “a time and times, etc., it is unnecessary to say that there has been great diversity of opinion among expositors, and that many of the controversies in respect to future events turn on the sense attached to this and to the similar expressions which occur in the book of Revelation. The first and main inquiry pertains, of course, to its literal and proper signification. The word used here rendered “time, times, time” - עדן עדנין ‛ı̂dânı̂yn ‛ı̂dân - is a word which in itself would no more designate any definite and fixed period than our word time does.
See Daniel 2:8-9, Daniel 2:21; Daniel 3:5, Daniel 3:15; Daniel 4:16, Daniel 4:23, Daniel 4:25, Daniel 4:32; Daniel 7:12. In some of these instances, the period actually referred to was a year Daniel 4:16, Daniel 4:23, but this is not necessarily implied in the word used, but the limitation is demanded by the circumstances of the case. So far as the word is concerned, it would denote a day, a week, a month, a year, or a larger or smaller division of time, and the period actually intended to be designated must be determined from the connection. The Latin Vulgate is indefinite - ad tempus; so the Greek - ἕως καιροῦ heōs kairou so the Syriac, and so Luther - eine Zeit; and so Lengerke - eine Zeit. The phrase “for a time” expresses accurately the meaning of the original word. The word rendered “times” is the same word in the plural, though evidently with a dual signification. - Gesenius, Lexicon; Lengerke, in loc. The obvious meaning is two such times as is designated by the former “time.”
The phrase “and the dividing of a time” means clearly half of such a period. Thus, if the period denoted by a “time,” here be a year, the whole period would be three years and a half. Designations of time like this, or of this same period, occur several times in the prophecies (Daniel and Revelation), and on their meaning much depends in regard to the interpretation of the prophecies pertaining to the future. This period of three years and a half equals forty-two months, or twelve hundred and sixty days - the periods mentioned in Revelation 11:2; Revelation 12:6, and on which so much depends in the interpretation of that book. The only question of importance in regard to the period of time here designated is, whether this is to be taken literally to denote three years and a half, or whether a symbolic method is to be adopted, by making each one of the days represent a year, thus making the time referred to, in fact, twelve hundred and sixty years. On this question expositors are divided, and probably will continue to be, and according as one or the other view is adopted, they refer the events here to Antiochus Epiphanes, or to the Papal power; or perhaps it should be said more accurately, according as they are disposed to refer the events here to Antiochus or to the Papacy, do they embrace one or the other method of interpretation in regard to the meaning of the days. At this point in the examination of the passage, the only object is to look at it exegetically; to examine it as language apart from the application, or unbiassed by any purpose of application; and though absolute certainty cannot perhaps be obtained, yet the following may be regarded as exegetically probable:
(1) The word time may be viewed as denoting a year: I mean a year rather than a week, a month, or any other period - because a year is a more marked and important portion of time, and because a day, a week, a month, is so short that it cannot be reasonably supposed that it is intended. As there is no larger natural period than a year - no cycle in nature that is so marked and obvious as to be properly suggested by the word time, it cannot be supposed that any such cycle is intended. And as there is so much particularity in the language used here, “a time, and times, and half a time,” it is to be presumed that some definite and marked period is intended, and that it is not time in general. It may be presumed, therefore, that in some sense of the term the period of a year is referred to.
(2) The language does not forbid the application to a literal year, and then the actual time designated would be three years and a half. No laws of exegesis, nothing in the language itself, could be regarded as violated, if such an interpretation were given to the language, and so far as this point is concerned, there would be no room for debate.
(3) The same remark may be made as to the symbolic application of the language - taking it for a much longer period than literally three years and a half; that is, regarding each day as standing for a year, and thus considering it as denoting twelve hundred and sixty years. This could not be shown to be a violation of prophetic usage, or to be forbidden by the nature of prophetic language, because nothing is more common than symbols, and because there are actual instances in which such an interpretation must be understood. Thus in Ezekiel 4:6, where the prophet was commanded to lie upon his right side forty days, it is expressly said that it was symbolic or emblematic: “I have appointed thee each day for a year.” No one can doubt that it would be strictly consistent with prophetic usage to suppose that the time here might be symbolic, and that a longer time might be referred to than the literal interpretation would require.
(4) It may be added, that there are some circumstances, even considering the passage with reference only to the interpretation of the language, and with no view to the question of its application, which would make this appear probable. Among these circumstances are the following:
(a) the fact that, in the prophecies, it is unusual to designate the time literally. Very few instances can be referred to in which this is done. It is commonly by some symbol; some mark; some peculiarity of the time or age referred to, that the designation is made, or by some symbol that may be understood when the event has occurred.
(b) This designation of time occurs in the midst of symbols - where all is symbol - the beasts, the horns, the little horn, etc.; and it would seem to be much more probable that such method would be adopted as designating the time referred to than a literal method.
(c) It is quite apparent on the mere perusal of the passage here that the events do actually extend far into the future - far beyond what would be denoted by the brief period of three and a half years. This will be considered more fully in another place in the inquiry as to the meaning of these prophecies. (See also Editor‘s Preface to volume on Revelation.)
(4) a fourth point in the explanation given by the interpreter to Daniel is, that there would be a solemn judgment in regard to this power, and that the dominion conceded to it over the saints for a time would be utterly taken away, and the power itself destroyed: “but the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume, and to destroy it unto the end,” Daniel 7:26. That is, it shall be taken away; it shall come entirely to an end. The interpreter does not say by whom this would be done, but he asserts the fact, and that the destruction of the dominion would be final. That is, it would entirely and forever cease. This would be done by an act of Divine judgment, or as if a solemn judgment should be held, and a sentence pronounced. It would be as manifestly an act of God as if he should sit as a judge, and pronounce sentence. See the notes at Daniel 7:9-11.
(5) And, a fifth point in the explanation of the interpreter is, that the dominion under the whole heaven would be given to the saints of the Most High, and that all nations should serve him; that is, that there would be a universal prevalence of righteousness on the earth, and that God would reign in the hearts and lives of men, Daniel 7:27. See the notes at Daniel 7:13-14.
Verse 23
We have here further particulars respecting the fourth beast and the little horn.DAR 126.2
Perhaps enough has already been said respecting the fourth beast (Rome) and the ten horns, or ten kingdoms, which arose therefrom. The little horn now more particularly demands attention. As stated on verse 8, we find the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning this horn in the rise and work of the papacy. It is a matter of both interest and importance, therefore, to inquire into the causes which resulted in the development of this anti-Christian power.DAR 126.3
The first pastors or bishops of Rome enjoyed a respect proportionate to the rank of the city in which they resided; and for the first few centuries of the Christian era, Rome was the largest, richest, and most powerful city in the world. It was the seat of empire, the capital of the nations. “All the inhabitants of the earth belong to her,†said Julian; and Claudian declared her to be “the fountain of laws.†“If Rome is the queen of cities, why should not her pastor be the king of bishops?†was the reasoning these Roman pastors adopted. “Why should not the Roman Church be the mother of Christendom? Why should not all nations be her children, and her authority their sovereign law? It was easy,†says D'Aubigné, from whom we quote these words (History of the Reformation, Vol. I, chap. 1), “for the ambitious heart of man to reason thus. Ambitious Rome did so.â€DAR 127.1
The bishops in the different parts of the Roman empire felt a pleasure in yielding to the bishop of Rome some portion of that honor which Rome, as the queen city, received from the nations of the earth. There was originally no dependence implied in the honor thus paid. “But,†continues D'Aubigné, “usurped power increases like an avalanche. Admonitions, at first simply fraternal, soon became absolute commands in the mouth of the pontiff. The Western bishops favored this encroachment of the Roman pastors, either from jealousy of the Eastern bishops, or because they preferred submitting to the supremacy of a pope rather than to the dominion of a temporal power.â€DAR 127.2
Such were the influences clustering around the bishop of Rome, and thus was everything tending toward his speedy elevation to the supreme spiritual throne of Christendom. But the fourth century was destined to witness an obstacle thrown across the path of this ambitious dream. Arius, parish priest of the ancient and influential church of Alexandria, sprung his doctrine upon the world, occasioning so fierce a controversy in the Christian church that a general council was called at Nicaea, by the emperor Constantine, A. D. 325, to consider and adjust it. Arius maintained “that the Son was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that he was the first and noblest of those beings whom the Father had created out of nothing, the instrument by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the universe, and therefore inferior to the Father both in nature and dignity.†This opinion was condemned by the council, which decreed that Christ was of one and the same substance with the Father. Hereupon Arius was banished to Illyria, and his followers were compelled to give their assent to the creed composed on that occasion. (Mosheim, cent. 4, part 2, chap. 4.; Stanley, History of the Eastern Church, p. 239.)DAR 127.3
The controversy itself, however, was not to be disposed of in this summary manner, but continued for ages to agitate the Christian world, the Arians everywhere becoming the bitter enemies of the pope and of the Roman Catholic Church. From these facts it is evident that the spread of Arianism would check the influence of the Catholics; and the possession of Rome and Italy by a people of the Arian persuasion, would be fatal to the supremacy of a Catholic bishop. But the prophecy had declared that this horn would rise to supreme power, and that in reaching this position it would subdue three kings.DAR 128.1
Some difference of opinion has existed in regard to the particular powers which were overthrown in the interest of the papacy, in reference to which the following remark by Albert Barnes seems very pertinent: “In the confusion that existed on the breaking up of the Roman empire, and the imperfect accounts of the transactions which occurred in the rise of the papal power, it would not be wonderful if it should be difficult to find events distinctly recorded that would be in all respects an accurate and absolute fulfillment of the vision. Yet it is possible to make out the fulfillment of this with a good degree of certainty in the history of the papacy.†— Notes on Daniel 7.DAR 128.2
Mr. Mede supposes the three kingdoms plucked up to have been the Greeks, the Lombards, and the Franks; and Sir Isaac Newton supposes they were the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Lombards, and the Senate and Dukedom of Rome. Bishop Newton (Dissertation on the Prophecies, pp. 217, 218) states some serious objections to both these schemes. The Franks could not have been one of these kingdoms; for they were never plucked up before the papacy. The Lombards could not have been one; for they were never made subject to the popes. Says Barnes, “I do not find, indeed, that the kingdom of the Lombards was, as is commonly stated, among the number of the temporal sovereignties that became subject to the authority of the popes.†And the Senate and Dukedom of Rome could not have been one; for they, as such, never constituted one of the ten kingdoms, three of which were to be plucked up before the little horn.DAR 128.3
But we apprehend that the chief difficulty in the application made by these eminent commentators, lay in the fact that they supposed that the prophecy respecting the exaltation of the papacy had not been fulfilled, and could not have been, till the pope became a temporal prince; and hence they sought to find an accomplishment of the prophecy in the events which led to the pope's temporal sovereignty. Whereas, evidently, the prophecy of verses 24, 25 refers, not to his civil power, but to his power to domineer over the minds and consciences of men; and the pope reached this position, as will hereafter appear, in A. D. 538; and the plucking up of the three horns took place before this, and to make way for this very exaltation to spiritual dominion. The insuperable difficulty in the way of all attempts to apply the prophecy to the Lombards and the other powers named above is, that they may come altogether too late in point of time; for the prophecy deals with the arrogant efforts of the Roman pontiff to gain power, not with his endeavors to oppress and humble the nations after he had secured the supremacy.DAR 129.1
The position is here confidently taken that the three powers, or horns, plucked up before the papacy, were the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths; and this position rests upon the following statements of historians.DAR 129.2
Odoacer, the leader of the Heruli, was the first of the barbarians who reigned over the Romans. He took the throne of Italy, according to Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. III, pp. 510, 515), in 476. Of his religious belief Gibbon (p. 516) says. “Like the rest of the barbarians, he had been instructed in the Arian heresy; but he revered the monastic and episcopal characters, and the silence of the Catholics attests the toleration which they enjoyed.â€DAR 129.3
Again he says (p. 547): “The Ostrogoths, the Burgundians, the Suevi, and the Vandals, who had listened to the eloquence of the Latin clergy, preferred the more intelligible lessons of their domestic teachers; and Arianism was adopted as the national faith of the warlike converts who were seated on the ruins of the Western empire. This irreconcilable difference of religion was a perpetual source of jealousy and hatred; and the reproach of barbarian was embittered by the more odious epithet of heretic. The heroes of the North, who had submitted, with some reluctance, to believe that all their ancestors were in hell, were astonished and exasperated to learn that they themselves had only changed the mode of their eternal condemnation.â€DAR 130.1
The reader is requested to consider carefully a few more historical statements which throw some light on the situation at this time. Stanley (History of the Eastern Church, p. 151) says: “The whole of the vast Gothic population which descended on the Roman empire, so far as it was Christian at all, held to the faith of the Alexandrian heretic. Our first Teutonic version of the Scriptures was by an Arian missionary, Ulfilas. The first conqueror of Rome, Alaric, and the first conqueror of Africa, Genseric, were Arians. Theodoric, the great king of Italy, and hero of the ‘Nibelungen Lied,' was an Arian. The vacant place in his massive tomb at Ravenna is a witness of the vengeance which the Orthodox took on his memory, when, in their triumph, they tore down the porphyry vase in which his Arian subjects had enshrined his ashes.â€DAR 130.2
Ranke, in his History of the Popes (London, edition of 1871), Vol. I, p. 9, says: “But she [the church] fell, as was inevitable, into many embarrassments, and found herself in an entirely altered condition. A pagan people took possession of Britain; Arian kings seized the greater part of the remaining West; while the Lombards, long attached to Arianism, and, as neighbors, most dangerous and hostile, established a powerful sovereignty before the very gates of Rome. The Roman bishops, meanwhile, beset on all sides, exerted themselves with all the prudence and pertinacity which have remained their peculiar attributes, to regain the mastery, at least in their patriarchal diocese.â€DAR 130.3
Machiavelli, in his History of Florence, p. 14, says: “Nearly all the wars which the northern barbarians carried on in Italy, it may be here remarked, were occasioned by the pontiffs; and the hordes with which the country was inundated, were generally called in by them.â€DAR 131.1
These extracts give us a general view of the state of affairs at this time, and show us that though the hands of the Roman pontiffs might not be visibly manifest in the movements upon the political board, they constituted the power working assiduously behind the scenes to secure their own purposes. The relation which these Arian kings sustained to the pope, from which we can see the necessity of their being overthrown to make way for papal supremacy, is shown in the following testimony from Mosheim, given in his History of the Church, cent. 6, part 2, chap. 2, sec. 2: —DAR 131.2
“On the other hand, it is certain, from a variety of the most authentic records, that both the emperors and the nations in general were far from being disposed to bear with patience the yoke of servitude which the popes were imposing upon the Christian church. The Gothic princes set bounds to the power of those arrogant prelates in Italy, permitted none to be raised to the pontificate without their approbation, and reserved to themselves the right of judging of the legality of every new election.â€DAR 131.3
An instance in proof of this statement occurs in the history of Odoacer, the first Arian king above mentioned, as related by Bower in his History of the Popes, Vol. I, p. 271. When, on the death of Pope Simplicius, A. D. 483, the clergy and people had assembled for the election of a new pope, suddenly Basilius, praefectus praetorio, and lieutenant of King Odoacer, appeared in the assembly, expressed his surprise that any such work as appointing a successor to the deceased pope should be undertaken without him, in the name of the king declared all that had been done null and void, and ordered the election to be begun anew. Certainly the horn which exercised such a restrictive power over the papal pontiff must be taken away before the pope could reach the predicted supremacy.DAR 131.4
Meanwhile Zeno, the emperor of the East, and friend of the pope, was anxious to drive Odoacer out of Italy (Machiavelli, p. 6), a movement which he soon had the satisfaction of seeing accomplished without trouble to himself, in the following manner. Theodoric had come to the throne of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Moesia and Pannonia. Being on friendly terms with Zeno, he wrote him, stating that it was impossible for him to restrain his Goths within the impoverished province of Pannonia, and asking his permission to lead them to some more favorable region, which they might conquer and possess. Zeno gave him permission to march against Odoacer, and take possession of Italy. Accordingly, after a three years' war, the Herulian kingdom in Italy was overthrown, Odoacer was treacherously slain, and Theodoric established his Ostrogoths in the Italian peninsula. As already stated he was an Arian, and the law of Odoacer subjecting the election of the pope to the approval of the king, was still retained.DAR 132.1
The following incident will show how completely the papacy was in subjection to his power. The Catholics in the East, having commenced a persecution against the Arians in 523, Theodoric summoned Pope John into his presence, and thus addressed him: “If the emperor [Justin, the predecessor of Justinian] does not think fit to revoke the edict which he has lately issued against those of my persuasion [that is, the Arians], it is my firm resolution to issue the like edict against those of his [that is, the Catholics]; and to see it everywhere executed with the same rigor. Those who do not profess the faith of Nicaea are heretics to him, and those who do are heretics to me. Whatever can excuse or justify his severity to the former, will excuse and justify mine to the latter. But the emperor,†continued the king, “has none about him who dare freely and openly speak what they think, or to whom he would hearken if they did. But the great veneration which he professes for your See, leaves no room to doubt but he would hearken to you. I will therefore have you to repair forthwith to Constantinople, and there to remonstrate, both in my name and your own, against the violent measures in which that court has so rashly engaged. It is in your power to divert the emperor from them; and till you have, nay, till the Catholics [this name Theodoric applies to the Arians] are restored to the free exercise of their religion, and to all the churches from which they have been driven, you must not think of returning to Italy.†— Bower's History of the Popes, Vol. I, p. 325.DAR 132.2
The pope who was thus peremptorily ordered not to set his foot again upon Italian soil until he had carried out the will of the king, certainly could not hope for much advancement toward any kind of supremacy till that power was taken out of the way. Baronius, according to Bower, will have it that the pope sacrificed himself on this occasion, and advised the emperor not by any means to comply with the demand the king had sent him. But Mr. Bower thinks this inconsistent, since he could not, he says, “sacrifice himself without sacrificing, at the same time, the far greater part of the innocent Catholics in the West, who were either subject to King Theodoric, or to other Arian princes in alliance with him.†It is certain that the pope and the other ambassadors were treated with severity on their return, which Bower explains on this wise: “Others arraign them all of high treason; and truly the chief men of Rome were suspected at this very time of carrying on a treasonable correspondence with the court of Constantinople, and machinating the ruin of the Gothic empire in Italy.†— Id., p. 326.DAR 133.1
The feelings of the papal party toward Theodoric may be accurately estimated, according to a quotation already given, by the vengeance which they took on his memory, when they tore from his massive tomb in Ravenna the porphyry vase in which his Arian subjects had enshrined his ashes. But these feelings are put into language by Baronius, who inveighs “against Theodoric as a cruel barbarian, as a barbarous tyrant, as an impious Arian.†But “having exaggerated with all his eloquence, and bewailed the deplorable condition of the Roman Church reduced by that heretic to a state of slavery, he comforts himself in the end, and dries up his tears, with the pious thought that the author of such a calamity died soon after, and was eternally damned!†— Baronius's Annals, A. D. 526, p. 116; Bower, Vol. III, p. 328.DAR 133.2
While the Catholics were thus feeling the restraining power of an Arian king in Italy, they were suffering a violent persecution from the Arian Vandals in Africa. (Gibbon, chap. 37, sec. 2.) Elliott, in his Horae Apocalypticae, Vol. III, p. 152, note 3, says: “The Vandal kings were not only Arians, but persecutors of the Catholics; in Sardinia and Corsica, under the Roman Episcopate, we may presume, as well as in Africa.â€DAR 134.1
Such was the position of affairs, when, in 533, Justinian entered upon his Vandal and Gothic wars. Wishing to secure the influence of the pope and the Catholic party, he issued that memorable decree which was to constitute the pope the head of all the churches, and from the carrying out of which, in 538, the period of papal supremacy is to be dated. And whoever will read the history of the African campaign, 533-4, and the Italian campaign, 534-8, will notice that the Catholics everywhere hailed as deliverers the army of Belisarius, the general of Justinian.DAR 134.2
The testimony of D'Aubigné (Reformation, book 1, chap. 1), also throws light upon the undercurrents which gave shape to outward movements in these eventful times. He says: “Princes whom these stormy times often shook upon their thrones, offered their protection if Rome would in its turn support them. They conceded to her the spiritual authority, provided she would make a return in secular power. They were lavish of the souls of men, in the hope that she would aid them against their enemies. The power of the hierarchy, which was ascending, and the imperial power, which was declining, leaned thus one upon the other, and by this alliance accelerated their twofold destiny. Rome could not lose by it. An edict of Theodosius II and of Valentinian III proclaimed the Roman bishop ‘rector of the whole church.' Justinian published a similar decree.â€DAR 134.3
But no decree of this nature could be carried into effect until the Arian horns which stood in its way, were plucked up. The Vandals fell before the victorious arms of Belisarius in 534; and the Goths, retiring, left him in undisputed possession of Rome in 538. (Gibbon's Rome, chap 41.)DAR 135.1
Procopius relates that the African war was undertaken by Justinian for the relief of the Christians (Catholics) in that quarter; and that when he expressed his intention in this respect, the prefect of the palace came very near dissuading him from his purpose; but a dream appeared to him in which he was bidden “not to shrink from the execution of his design; for by assisting the Christians he would overthrow the power of the Vandals.†— Evagrius's Ecclesiastical History, Book chap. 16.DAR 135.2
Listen again to Mosheim: “It is true that the Greeks who had received the decrees of the Council of Nicaea [that is, the Catholics], persecuted and oppressed the Arians wherever their influence and authority could reach; but the Nicenians, in their turn, were not less rigorously treated by their adversaries [the Arians], particularly in Africa and Italy, where they felt, in a very severe manner, the weight of the Arian power, and the bitterness of hostile resentment. The triumphs of Arianism were, however, transitory, and its prosperous days were entirely eclipsed when the Vandals were driven out of Africa, and the Goths out of Italy, by the arms of Justinian.†— Mosheim's Church History, cent. 6, part 2, chap. 5, sec. 3.DAR 135.3
Elliott, in his Horae Apocalypticae, makes two enumerations of the ten kingdoms which rose out of the Roman empire, varying the second list from the first according to the changes which had taken place at the later period to which the second list applies. His first list differs from that mentioned in remarks on chap. 2:42, only in that he put the Allemanni in place of the Huns, and the Bavarians in place of the Lombards, a variation which can be easily accounted for. But out of this list he names the three that were plucked up before the papacy, in these words: “I might cite three that were eradicated from before the pope out of the list first given; namely, the Heruli under Odoacer, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths.†— Vol. III, p. 152, note 1.DAR 135.4
Although he prefers the second list, in which he puts the Lombards instead of the Heruli, the foregoing is good testimony that if we make the enumeration of the ten kingdoms while the Heruli were a ruling power, they were one of the horns which were plucked up.DAR 136.1
From the historical testimony above cited, we think it clearly established that the three horns plucked up were the powers named; viz., the Heruli in A. D. 493, the Vandals in 534, and the Ostrogoths in 538.DAR 136.2
1. “He shall speak great words against the Most High.†Has the papacy done this? Look at a few of the pope's self-accepted titles: “Vicegerent of the Son of God,†“Our Lord God, the Pope,†“Another God upon earth,†“King of the world,†“King of kings and Lord of lords.†Said Pope Nicholas to Emperor Michael, “The pope, who is called God by Constantine, can never be bound or released by man; for God cannot be judged by man.†Is there need of bolder blasphemy than this? Listen also to the adulation the popes have received from their followers without rebuke. A Venetian prelate in the fourth session of the Lateran, addressed the pope as follows: “Thou art our Shepherd, our Physician, in short, a second God upon earth.†Another bishop called him “the lion of the tribe of Judah, the promised Saviour.†Lord Anthony Pucci, in the fifth Lateran, said to the pope, “The sight of thy divine majesty does not a little terrify me; for I am not ignorant that all power both in heaven and in earth is given unto you; that the prophetic saying is fulfilled in you, ‘All the kings of the earth shall worship him, and nations shall serve him.'†(See Oswald's Kingdom Which Shall Not be Destroyed, pp. 97-99.) Again, Dr. Clarke, in verse 25, says: “‘He shall speak as if he were God.' So St. Jerome quotes from Symmachus. To none can this apply so well or so fully as to the popes of Rome. They have assumed infallibility, which belongs only to God. They profess to forgive sins, which belongs only to God. They profess to open and shut heaven, which belongs only to God. They profess to be higher than all the kings of the earth, which belongs only to God. And they go beyond God in pretending to loose whole nations from their oath of allegiance to their kings, when such kings do not please them. And they go against God when they give indulgences for sin. This is the worst of all blasphemies.â€DAR 136.3
2. “And shall wear out the saints of the Most High.†Has the papacy done this? For the mere information of any student of church history, no answer need here be given. All know that for long years the papal church has pursued its relentless work against the true followers of God. Chapter after chapter might be given, would our limited space permit. Wars, crusades, massacres, inquisitions, and persecutions of all kinds, — these were their weapons of extinction.DAR 137.1
Scott's Church History says: “No computation can reach the numbers who have been put to death, in different ways, on account of their maintaining the profession of the gospel, and opposing the corruptions of the Church of Rome. A million of poor Waldenses perished in France; nine hundred thousand orthodox Christians were slain in less than thirty years after the institution of the order of the Jesuits. The Duke of Alva boasted of having put to death in the Netherlands thirty-six thousand by the hand of the common executioner during the space of a few years. The Inquisition destroyed, by various tortures, one hundred and fifty thousand within thirty years. These are a few specimens, and but a few, of those which history has recorded. But the total amount will never be known till the earth shall disclose her blood, and no more cover her slain.â€DAR 137.2
Commenting on the prophecy that the little horn should “wear out the saints of the Most High,†Barnes, in his Notes on Daniel 7:25, says: “Can any one doubt that this is true of the papacy? The Inquisition, the persecutions of the Waldenses, the ravages of the Duke of Alva, the fires of Smithfield, the tortures at Goa, — indeed, the whole history of the papacy may be appealed to in proof that this is applicable to that power. If anything could have worn out the saints of the Most High, — could have cut them off from the earth so that evangelical religion would have become extinct, — it would have been the persecutions of the papal power. In the year 1208 a crusade was proclaimed by Pope Innocent III against the Waldenses and Albigenses, in which a million men perished. From the beginning of the order of Jesuits in the year 1540 to 1580, nine hundred thousand were destroyed. One hundred and fifty thousand perished by the Inquisition in thirty years. In the Low Countries fifty thousand persons were hanged, beheaded, burned, and buried alive, for the crime of heresy, within the space of thirty-eight years from the edict of Charles V against the Protestants to the peace of Chateau Cambresis in 1559. Eighteen thousand suffered by the hand of the executioner in the space of five years and a half, during the administration of the Duke of Alva. Indeed, the slightest acquaintance with the history of the papacy will convince any one that what is here said of ‘making war with the saints' (verse 21), and ‘wearing out the saints of the Most High' (verse 25), is strictly applicable to that power, and will accurately describe its history.†(See Buck's Theological Dictionary, art., Persecutions; Oswald's Kingdom, etc., pp. 107-133; Dowling's History of Romanism; Fox's Book of Martyrs; Charlotte Elizabeth's Martyrology; The Wars of the Huguenots; The Great Red Dragon, by Anthony Gavin, formerly one of the Roman Catholic priests of Saragossa, Spain; Histories of the Reformation, etc.)DAR 137.3
To parry the force of this damaging testimony from all history, papists deny that the church has ever persecuted any one; it has been the secular power; the church has only passed decision upon the question of heresy, and then turned the offenders over to the civil power, to be dealt with according to the pleasure of the secular court. The impious hypocrisy of this claim is transparent enough to make it an absolute insult to common sense. In those days of persecution, what was the secular power? — Simply a tool in the hand of the church, and under its control, to do its bloody bidding. And when the church delivered its prisoners to the executioners to be destroyed, with fiendish mockery it made use of the following formula: “And we do leave thee to the secular arm, and to the power of the secular court; but at the same time do most earnestly beseech that court so to moderate its sentence as not to touch thy blood, nor to put thy life in any sort of danger.†And then, as intended, the unfortunate victims of popish hate were immediately executed. (Geddes's Tracts on Popery; View of the Court of Inquisition in Portugal, p. 446; Limborch, Vol. II, p. 289.)DAR 138.1
But the false claims of papists in this respect have been flatly denied and disproved by one of their own standard writers, Cardinal Bellarmine, who was born in Tuscany in 1542, and who, after his death in 1621, came very near being placed in the calendar of saints on account of his great services in behalf of popery. This man, on one occasion, under the spur of controversy, betrayed himself into an admission of the real facts in the case. Luther having said that the church (meaning the true church) never burned heretics, Bellarmine, understanding it of the Romish Church, made answer: “This argument proves not the sentiment, but the ignorance or impudence of Luther; for as almost an infinite number were either burned or otherwise put to death, Luther either did not know it, and was therefore ignorant; or if he knew it, he was convicted of impudence and falsehood; for that heretics were often burned by the church, may be proved by adducing a few from many examples.â€DAR 139.1
To show the relation of the secular power to the church, as held by Romanists, we quote the answer of the same writer to the argument that the only weapon committed to the church is “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.†To this he replied: “As the church has ecclesiastical and secular princes, who are her two arms, so she has two swords, the spiritual and material; and therefore when her right hand is unable to convert a heretic with the sword of the Spirit, she invokes the aid of the left hand, and coerces heretics with the material sword.†In answer to the argument that the apostles never invoked the secular arm against heretics, he says, “The apostles did it not, because there was no Christian prince whom they could call on for aid. But afterward, in Constantine's time, ... the church called in the aid of the secular arm.†— Dowling's History of Romanism, pp. 547, 548.DAR 139.2
In corroboration of these facts, fifty million martyrs — this is the lowest computation made by any historian — will rise up in the judgment as witnesses against her bloody work.DAR 140.1
Pagan Rome persecuted relentlessly the Christian church, and it is estimated that three million Christians perished in the first three centuries, yet it is said that the primitive Christians prayed for the continuance of imperial Rome; for they knew that when this form of government should cease, another far worse persecuting power would arise, which would literally, as this prophecy declares, “wear out the saints of the Most High.†Pagan Rome could slay the infants, but spare the mothers; but papal Rome slew both mothers and infants together. No age, no sex, no condition in life, was exempt from her relentless rage. “When Herod died,†says a forcible writer, “he went down to the grave with infamy; and earth had one murderer, one persecutor, less, and hell one victim more. O Rome! what will not be thy hell, and that of thy votaries, when thy judgment shall have come!â€DAR 140.2
3. And shall “think to change times and laws.†What laws? and whose? Not the laws of other earthly governments; for it was nothing marvelous or strange for one power to change the laws of another, whenever it could bring such power under its dominion. Not human laws of any kind; for the little horn had power to change these so far as its jurisdiction extended; but the times and laws in question were such as this power should only think to change, but not be able to change. They are the laws of the same Being to whom the saints belong who are worn out by this power; namely, the laws of the Most High. And has the papacy attempted this? — Yes, even this. It has, in its catechisms, expunged the second commandment of the decalogue to make way for its adoration of images. It has divided the tenth commandment to make up the number ten. And, more audacious than all! it has taken hold of the fourth commandment, torn from its place the Sabbath of Jehovah, the only memorial of the great God ever given to man, and erected in its place a rival institution to serve another purpose. *DAR 140.3
4. “And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.†The pronoun they embraces the saints, the times, and the laws, just mentioned. How long a time were they to be given into the hands of this power? A time, as we have seen from chapter 4:23, is one year; two times, the least that could be denoted by the plural, two years, and the dividing of time, or half a time (Sept., ?????,) half a year. Gesenius also gives “ ?????? , Chald., a half. Daniel 7:25.†We thus have three years and a half for the continuance of this power. The Hebrew, or rather the Chaldaic, word for time in the text before us, is ?????? iddân, which Gesenius defines thus: “Time. Spec, in prophetic language for a year. Daniel 7:25, ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ??????? for a year, also two years, and half a year; i. e., for three years and a half; comp. Jos. B. J. 1. 1. 1.†We must now consider that we are in the midst of symbolic prophecy; hence in this measurement the time is not literal, but symbolic also. The inquiry then arises, How long a period is denoted by the three years and a half of prophetic time? The rule given us in the Bible is, that when a day is used as a symbol, it stands for a year. Ezekiel 4:6; Numbers 14:34. Under the Hebrew word for day, ???? (yom), Gesenius has this remark: “3. Sometimes ?????? [yamim] marks a definite space of time; viz., a year; as also Syr. and Chald. ?????? [iddân] denotes both time and year; and as in English several words signifying time, weight, measure, are likewise used to denote certain specific times, weights, and measures.†The ordinary Jewish year, which must be used as the basis of reckoning, contained three hundred and sixty days. Three years and a half contained twelve hundred and sixty days. As each day stands for a year, we have twelve hundred and sixty years for the continuation of the supremacy of this horn. Did the papacy possess dominion that length of time? The answer again is, Yes. The edict of the emperor Justinian, dated A. D. 533, made the bishop of Rome the head of all the churches. But this edict could not go into effect until the Arian Ostrogoths, the last of the three horns that were plucked up to make room for the papacy, were driven from Rome; and this was not accomplished, as already shown, till A. D. 538. The edict would have been of no effect had this latter event not been accomplished; hence from this latter year we are to reckon, as this was the earliest point where the saints were in reality in the hand of this power. From this point did the papacy hold supremacy for twelve hundred and sixty years? — Exactly. For 538 + 1260 = 1798; and in the year 1798, Berthier, with a French army, entered Rome, proclaimed a republic, took the pope prisoner, and for a time abolished the papacy. It has never since enjoyed the privileges and immunities which it possessed before. Thus again this power fulfils to the very letter the specifications of the prophecy, which proves beyond question that the application is correct.DAR 141.1
After describing the terrible career of the little horn, and stating that the saints should be given into his hand for 1260 years, bringing us down to 1798, verse 26 declares: “But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.†In verse 10 of the same chapter we have substantially the same expression relative to the judgment: “The judgment was set.†It would seem consistent to suppose that the same judgment is referred to in both instances. But the sublime scene described in verse 10, is the opening of the investigative Judgment in the sanctuary in heaven, as will appear in remarks on Daniel 8:14 and 9:25-27. The opening of this judgment scene is located by the prophecy at the close of the great prophetic period of 2300 years, which terminated in 1844. (See under chapter 9:25-27.) Four years after this, in 1848, the great revolution which shook so many thrones in Europe, drove the pope also from his dominions. His restoration shortly after was through the force of foreign bayonets, by which alone he was upheld till his final loss of temporal power in 1870. The overthrow of the papacy in 1798, marked the conclusion of the prophetic period of 1260 years, and constituted the “deadly wound†prophesied in Revelation 13:3, to come upon this power; but this deadly wound was to be “healed.†In 1800 another pope was elected; his palace and temporal dominion were restored, and every prerogative except, as Mr. Croly says, that of a systematic persecutor, was again under his control; and thus the wound was healed. But since 1870, he has enjoyed no prestige as a temporal prince, among the nations of the earth.DAR 142.1
The germ in the seed grows by the unfolding of the life-principle which God has implanted. Its development depends upon no human power. So it is with the kingdom of Christ. It is a new creation. Its principles of development are the opposite of those that rule the kingdoms of this world. Earthly governments prevail by physical force; they maintain their dominion by war; but the founder of the new kingdom is the Prince of Peace. The Holy Spirit represents worldly kingdoms under the symbol of fierce beasts of prey; but Christ is “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” John 1:29. In His plan of government there is no employment of brute force to compel the conscience. The Jews looked for the kingdom of God to be established in the same way as the kingdoms of the world. To promote righteousness they resorted to external measures. They devised methods and plans. But Christ implants a principle. By implanting truth and righteousness, He counterworks error and sin. COL 77.1
As Jesus spoke this parable, the mustard plant could be seen far and near, lifting itself above the grass and grain, and waving its branches lightly in the air. Birds flitted from twig to twig, and sang amid the leafy foliage. Yet the seed from which sprang this giant plant was among the least of all seeds. At first it sent up a tender shoot, but it was of strong vitality, and grew and flourished until it reached its present great size. So the kingdom of Christ in its beginning seemed humble and insignificant. Compared with earthly kingdoms it appeared to be the least of all. By the rulers of this world Christ's claim to be a king was ridiculed. Yet in the mighty truths committed to His followers the kingdom of the gospel possessed a divine life. And how rapid was its growth, how widespread its influence! When Christ spoke this parable, there were only a few Galilean peasants to represent the new kingdom. Their poverty, the fewness of their numbers, were urged over and over again as a reason why men should not connect themselves with these simple-minded fishermen who followed Jesus. But the mustard seed was to grow and spread forth its branches throughout the world. When the earthly kingdoms whose glory then filled the hearts of men should perish, the kingdom of Christ would remain, a mighty and far-reaching power. COL 77.2
So the work of grace in the heart is small in its beginning. A word is spoken, a ray of light is shed into the soul, an influence is exerted that is the beginning of the new life; and who can measure its results? COL 78.1
Read in context »