The Proof Is In the Pudding.

 Proof is in the pudding. Meaning? If you are presented with pudding whether it is a good or bad pudding, only eating it will tell the tale. If you take a spoonful of pudding and it's good, there's your proof. If you take a spoonful of pudding and it's bad, again, there is your proof of it's being a bad tasting pudding. Simply looking at the pudding doesn't necessarily mean it's a good pudding. It's truly only when one partakes of the pudding they'll know factually it's not good. I've watched a baking show and on the show there is a constant happenstance- bakers will make of visual mess of the item being baked, yet it will taste fantastic-  substance ruled over style. And the opposite occurred quite often as well. A fantastic appearing bake tasted absolutely awful- style over substance. When you get the proof it's really in the tasting. The judges of the show would rather have both style and substance, but barring that occurring they are much more pleased by the taste-the substance of a bake than its style. They want to be able to enjoy eating what is presented. The proof is in the pudding.  What's this all have to do with our current study from the book- From Eden to Eden- An Historic and Prophetic Study-?  A lot. 

The proof is in the studying. The proof is in the history. The proof is in the prophecy.

If we neglect to partake of the study, history, prophecy we will not be nourished as we should be.  We can have all the style we want, but we need the substance, we can't neglect the substance, not when the very God we worship tells us we are blessed to study prophecy!  If you won't even taste the pudding of prophecy to find the proof in the pudding, you are rejecting God's word. 

Be blessed- study prophecy!  

God help us all to KNOW Him and do His will now and always!!!!!!!

All through Jesus Christ our Lord, now and forever! Amen!!!!!!!

*******

CHAPTER XI. THE BEAST WITH SEVEN HEADS AND TEN HORNS

The twelfth and thirteenth chapters of the Revelation so naturally follow the seventh of Daniel that some facts in Daniel's prophecy are passed over for the present, in order to follow out this chain. The thirteenth chapter of Revelation is, indeed, the complement of the seventh of Daniel; but a brief notice of Revelation 12 is necessary as preliminary to the study of chapter 13.

In chapter 12 are presented two prominent objects:--

1. A woman, which is a symbol of the church of Christ. She was clothed with the sun--the rising glory of the new, or gospel, dispensation. And the moon was under her feet--the paler glory of the dispensation just passing away. All the institutions of the Mosaic economy borrowed their light from the coming Messiah, the Son of God, the antitype of all its sacrifices, as the moon borrows her light from the sun. She had a crown of twelve stars--the twelve apostles of the Lamb. That this woman represented the church of God is evident from this circumstance, that to the woman was born a son, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron, and who was caught up to God and his throne. This will apply to the Lord Jesus Christ and to no one else. Again, in the seventeenth chapter of this

book, a woman represents the apostate church, the church of antichrist. Thus the two churches--that of Christ and that of antichrist--are represented by women. 

2. The other prominent object in this chapter is a great red dragon. Two views are held in regard to this: (1) That the dragon is Satan. This view has this advantage, that the dragon is called the devil and Satan in verse 9, and is there represented as the leader of the angels that fought against Michael, who is the Archangel, Jude 9, and his angels. And also the devil, or Satan, is called the dragon in chapter 20:2. This certainly seems decisive. (2) It is held that the dragon is a symbol of pagan Rome. In favor of this view is presented the appearance of the dragon, having seven heads and ten horns. These heads and horns are elsewhere used as symbols, and they certainly do not belong to the devil literally. Such is not the personal appearance of the devil.

Doubtless there is truth in both these views, and the whole truth seems to be comprised in the two. There is great uniformity of belief among the best authors that Satan is addressed directly as "king of Tyrus," in Eze. 28:12-19, while the reigning monarch was called the prince of Tyrus. Verses 1-10. Tyre was the great seat of commerce, the mart of nations; her merchants were princes, her traffickers the honorable of the earth. Isa. 23:3, 8. And her wickedness corresponded to her wealth and her greatness. She was Satan's chief instrument and representative in the days of her prosperity. And also of Rome. What nation or city ever served Satan so faithfully and so successfully as Rome? For many centuries it was the very seat of his service and his power. Cruelty and licentiousness were the characteristics of her people, from king to slave, under all phases of her dominion. Of this we are assured by history, yet how few of the crimes of her mighty men have come down through history. Under the circumstances, we see no difficulty in representing Satan as that old serpent, the dragon, and then letting the dragon stand as his chief representative--pagan Rome.

The dragon sought to put the man child to death as soon as he was born. An effort was put forth to slay the infant Jesus in Bethlehem. In this effort all the children of Bethlehem two years old and under were put to death--an act worthy of Satan himself. But it was committed under the order of a Roman king; and the Lord Jesus was finally put to death by another Roman king. The dragon then Persecuted the woman; he continued his persecution during the time and times and half, though she was protected from his power; and he will also persecute the remnant of her seed, the very last state of the church, "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Rev. 12:17. Compare chap. 19:10. 

These facts prove that the dragon does not leave the field of action while time endures. In Rev. 13:1, 2 is described the rise and appearance of a beast, in the following words:--

"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion; and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority."

By comparing this beast with the beasts in Dan. 7:1-7 it will be seen that it contains all the main features of all the beasts of that chapter. All rose out of the sea. In Rev. 17:15 waters are shown to represent the multitudes of people. It will yet be seen that there is a contrast presented on this point: they did not grow up; the powers they represent were not built up; they rose up by conquest and strivings among the nations.

The description of this beast gives the order the reverse of that in Daniel 7, because the two prophets stood at opposite ends of the chain. John said the beast was like unto a leopard--the third beast of Daniel 7, the symbol of the Grecian kingdom. His feet were as the feet of a bear--the second beast of Daniel, the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians. And his mouth was as the mouth of a lion--the first beast of Daniel, Babylon. Thus far the likeness is complete. But this is not all. The beast had seven heads and ten horns. There is no question ever raised against the idea that these horns are the same powers that are represented by the horns on the fourth beast of Daniel 7. Thus all the four beasts combine in this. But no theory which has ever been published concerning these heads fully satisfies the prophecy, but that does not hinder our identifying the beast itself. A comparison of its work, the time of its continuance, etc., with the same features of the "little horn" of Daniel 7, is sufficient to settle beyond all controversy that the two symbols represent the same power.

Can we see any object in the prophecy thus giving to this beast every prominent feature of those beasts? Certainly we can. This beast is the actual heir to the dominion held by those four beasts. An objection against this has been offered to the intent that the dominion of the popes was so limited that it cannot be said that they inherited the dominion of the great monarchies. This objection is based on wrong views of the papal power, as to both its nature and extent. On this point verse 2 says, "And the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority." This is very important ground and should be very carefully examined.

First, what is meant by the expression, "the supremacy of the papacy"? In what did the strength of the papal power consist? The word supremacy is a proper word to use in reference to the power of the popes, but not in regard to their civil power. This was not only quite limited, but variable and uncertain. Indeed, civil power is not necessary to the existence of the papacy, as all know; neither is it necessary to the exercise of the largest power ever exercised by the popes. The possession of civil power gives prestige in a certain sense, as the pope is thereby classed among kings, no matter how small his territory, and it brings him into closer relations to other governments. But it must be borne in mind that the popes never exercised power over kings by virtue of their own kingship, but always by reason of their priesthood. They never pretended to control kings, or to absolve subjects from their allegiance, by reason of their kingly power, but as being successors of St. Peter--as vicars of Christ upon earth. They claimed that, as all power was given to Christ in Heaven and upon earth, so must his vicar, the one who holds that power on earth, have a right to exercise all that power. 

Pope Symmachus said to the emperor of the East, that the pope was as much superior to an emperor as heavenly things are superior to earthly things. This was an admission on his part, that his supremacy was altogether in his spiritual authority; but the popes chose to overlook the acknowledged fact that their power as temporal princes took so much from their exalted position, as it made them ministers of merely earthly things in their priesthood. This is the logical conclusion, from the position assumed by Symmachus, though it is not the manner in which it has been viewed. And it should also be borne in mind that, at the time of Symmachus, he did not claim, or even directly aspire to, the exercise of civil power. It was in their spiritual power alone that their strength and supremacy consisted. Their anathemas, their curses of kings, their control over the subjects of kings, were all by virtue of their assumed power as the high priests of the kingdom of Christ. This was exercised without any regard to the extent of their territorial jurisdiction as civil rulers, or even to the existence of such jurisdiction.

We have been thus particular on this point, as it is one of great importance. The extent of papal power deserves special attention. Because the beginning of the civil power of the papacy is veiled in considerable obscurity, it has been argued that we cannot point with certainty to any particular time for the setting up  of the papacy. But this is not correct. Examining this subject with care, we shall find that four steps were taken, and only four, which fully established the power of the popes; and these steps are readily identified.

 

First, conferring the primacy upon the bishop of Rome, which was done bythe Council of Nice, and confirmed by the royal commissioners. Because the title did not, at that time, carry with it any great weight, or confer any particular power, some have thought that the primacy, as then established, did not amount to much. But they overlook the nature of the hierarchy as established by Constantine, and the consequences that naturally grew out of this gift. Bower gives a minute account of the church establishment, and from this some extracts are here given. He first describes the churches in their original independence, and their councils, being voluntary meetings, "there being no Christian magistrates in those days to convene synods." It is a fact that from the Council of Nice onwards, the magistrates convened synods and councils. Before the emperor took the headship of the national church, there was no earthly head of the church recognized. Bower says:--

"Such was the hierarchy, such the government of the church, during the first three centuries. But in the fourth and following ages great alterations were made in both, the church adapting her government to that of the State, namely, to the new form of government introduced by Constantine, who had taken the priesthood under his immediate protection. For it was in his reign that the titles of Patriarchs, Exarchs, Metropolitans, were first heard of, or at least had any power, authority, or privileges, annexed to them. That this conformity between the civil and ecclesiastical polity may appear more plainly, I shall premise a succinct account of the former, as established by Constantine throughout the empire." Here follows a description of the organization of the empire into prefectures, dioceses, provinces, with proconsuls, vicars, consulars, correctors, and presidents. "Each diocese had its metropolis, and likewise each province contained in the diocese." He continues:--

"Now, if we compare the civil polity thus described, with the ecclesiastical, we shall find them in most places answering each other, in every respect, and one bishop raised above the rest, according to the rank that was given in this new division to the city in which he presided. Thus, for instance, the chief cities of the five dioceses of the oriental prefecture were--Antioch, the metropolis of the oriental diocese; Alexandria, of the Egyptian; Ephesus, of the Asiatic; Cesarea, of the Pontic; and Heraclea, of the Thracian. Now the bishops of these cities, in regard of the eminence of their sees, were exalted above all other bishops, and distinguished with the title of exarchs; nay, and by degrees they acquired, not to say usurped, a kind of authority and jurisdiction over the bishops of the inferior sees, which was afterwards confirmed to them by several councils. In like manner, the bishops of the metropolis of each province was, on account of the dignity of his see, honored with the title of metropolitan, to which were annexed certain privileges, of which I shall speak hereafter." 

After further remarks and descriptions, he adds the following significant passage:--

"However, the power of the bishop of Rome far exceeded, within the bounds of his jurisdiction, that of other metropolitans, as I shall show." History of the Popes, under Sylvester.

Another historian makes the following remarks:--

"The bishop of Rome took precedence over all others of the episcopal order. Nor was this pre-eminence founded solely on popular feeling and a prejudice of long standing, sprung from various causes; but also on those grounds which commonly give priority and greatness in the estimation of mortals. For he exceeded all other bishops in the amplitude and splendor of the church over which he presided, in the magnitude of his revenues and possessions, in the number of his ministers of various descriptions, in the weight of his influence with the people at large, and in the sumptuousness and magnificence of his style of living. These marks of power and worldly greatness were so fascinating to the minds of Christians even in this age, that often most obstinate and bloody

contests took place at Rome when a new pontin was to be created by the suffrages of the priests and people." Murdock's Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Cent. 4, Part 2, chap. 2, sec. 5 (London, 1845).

Now, inasmuch as the bishops were possessed of power and dignity according to the rank of the city over which they presided, as Bower says, especial dignity and the primacy were given to the bishop of Rome, because it was the imperial city. And every step in the transformation of the pagan empire into the papal empire, proves that the higher honor conferred upon the bishop of Rome, was not because of any supposed primacy of Peter, or of any other apostle, but solely because of the imperial rank of the city. The Council of Chalcedon proceeded to confer prerogatives upon the bishop of Constantinople, against which the Roman delegates protested, as encroachments upon the primacy of Rome. The imperial commissioners who heard the plea, thus decided:--

"From the whole discussion, and from what has been brought forward on either side, we acknowledge that the primacy over all and the most eminent rank are to continue with the archbishop of old Rome." Schaff, Church History, Vol. 2, p. 281.

Considering that the church was just as extensive as the empire, that its officers corresponded to those of the several divisions or provinces of the empire, "the primacy over all and the most eminent rank" no longer appears to be an unimportant matter; and yet more especially, when we consider the other steps that were taken in connection with it, or soon after. 

Second, Constantine conferred certain civil privileges and powers upon the bishops, and, as usual, the highest upon the bishops of Rome. Sozomen gives the following testimony on this subject:--

"Constantine likewise enacted a law in favor of the clergy, permitting judgment to be passed by the bishops when litigants preferred appealing to them rather than to the secular court; he enacted that their decree should be valid, and as far superior to that of other judges as if pronounced by the emperor himself; that the governor and subordinate military officers should see to the execution of these decrees; and that sentence, when passed by them, should be irreversible." Ecclesiastical History, chap. 2.

It was not an idle expression of Stanley when he called the bishop of Rome "the chief Christian magistrate." All the bishops were elevated by this decree, but the bishop of Rome had the highest rank and primacy over all. Thus two important steps were taken, tending directly to the exaltation of the bishop of the imperial city; to him was given the primacy and the chief rank, and he was a civil magistrate with great authority. But little foresight were needed to anticipate the result of such steps, especially taken in connection with those which followed.

Third, Constantine removed the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople. Following the others, this step opened the way for the gratification of the most unbounded ambition of the Roman bishop. Of the effect of this step, Stanley says:--

"According to the fable of Sylvester, Constantine retired to Greece in order to leave Italy for the pope--'per cedera al pastor si fece Creco.' So said the legend, and it was undoubtedly the case that, by retiring to the East, he left the field clear for the bishop of Rome In the absence of the emperors from Rome, the chief Christian magistrate rose to new importance. When the Barbarians broke upon Italy, the pope thus became the representative of the ancient republic. It is one of the many senses in which the saying of Hobbes is true, that the papacy is but the ghost of the deceased Roman empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof." 

In a paragraph already quoted, Machiavel attributes the downfall of the Western Roman Empire to this removal of the capital. A work entitled, "A Concise History of the Papal Supremacy," published in Dublin, 1810, takes a most rational view of this move of Constantine. It says:--

"It is most certain that if the emperors had continued to reside at Rome, its bishops never would have usurped a supremacy." 

This fact is so evident that it is useless to multiply words in proof. The removal of the capital not only opened the way before the bishop of Rome, but the result was almost inevitable, that with the primacy over the whole church as extensive as the empire itself, and a civil magistracy of a very high grade in his hands, with possessions and revenues above all others, presiding in the imperial city, he must of necessity rise to great worldly importance when the emperors removed their throne as remote as to Constantinople, and the empire itself was beset on every hand by invading armies, and the emperors unable to afford relief. The emperors had before taken up their residences temporarily outside of the city of Rome; but this was a permanent removal, an entire resignation of the true seat of the empire. Thus far was the scripture fulfilled: "The dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority."

To be continued…

(From Eden to Eden-A Historic and Prophetic Study. By J. H. Waggoner. 1890.)