Daniel Chapter 7 Pt 7 - God Tells Us the Future.

 Truth in prophecy is so amazing when you comprehend the reality that our God knows the future and allowed us insight into this knowledge of His. No, we don't know what's going to happen to us personally in our lives, we aren't given individual prophecies. We aren't even given yearly prophecies. We've been given a BIG picture prophecy- in the 600's BC Daniel, a Biblical prophet, was given a prophecy that extended all the way to Jesus' Second Coming. Daniel was given a big picture and then that big picture was expounded on a few more times with more and more details. This amazing prophecy foretold Christ's ministry and death as the details are unfolded. God wants us to know our future. Not the future of our temporal day-to-day life, not the future of the day of our death, not the future that mankind strives to delve into the dark arts of Satan's world using what they term Psychic powers. God wants us to know our future AFTER our temporal life! We CAN know what happens after death. We can know so much if only we are willing to study the word of our LORD.

In this study of Daniel's prophecy we are now at a place where we are talking about the Fourth Beast and the Little Horn. If you've followed the studies to this point you know the Little Horn power represents the Papacy. We know there is a prophecy that extends to the year 1798. Here read this paragraph from yesterday-

'The Judgment Shall Sit.

After describing the terrible career of the little born, 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 Dan. 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. 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 Rev. 13: 3, to come upon this power; but this deadly wound was to be "healed."'

If that makes little sense to you, then you need to really go back and read and the study to this point and not jump in the middle expecting to understand.

The continuation of today's study will prove beyond a doubt that the deadly wound was healed… more and more prophecy coming to pass as predicted. More and more truth for us to solidify in our hearts that we can know our Savior IS returning, and we can be HIS, we must be HIS through His love, His sacrifice, by HIS grace and mercy!

Take time- read the facts… know the truth.

*******

Rev_13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Deadly Wound 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.

Something that we've seen change ourselves over the years. With Pope John Paul II the Pope has truly regain prestige. There are many ambassadors to the Papacy where there never were before.

Updated history- The wound is truly well healed.

www. americanambassadors.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Publications.article&articleid=44

'United States-Vatican Diplomatic Relations: The Past and The Future

'The beginning of a new administration is a good opportunity to examine the diplomatic relations between the United States (US) and another state. This is also a good time to examine the relations between the United States and the Holy See.

The White House announced on April 6, 2001, that it was the intention of President George W. Bush to nominate Mr. James Nicholson as the next Ambassador of the United States to the Holy See. Mr. Nicholson, an alumnus of the Military Academy at West Point served as an officer in the armed forces. He subsequently graduated from law school and practiced law in the state of Colorado. In 1997, he was elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee and played a major role in the George W. Bush presidential campaign. He is a friend of the President and is well connected with the White House.

On January 10, 1984, when President Reagan announced the establishment of formal diplomatic relations with the Holy See, he appointed William A. Wilson, who had been serving as his personal representative to the Pope, as the first US Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Holy See. Ambassador Wilson was a well known business executive from California.

The second US Ambassador was Frank Shakespeare, who had been Director of the US Information Agency (USIA) and Ambassador to Portugal. He was also an activist in public affairs.

Dr. Thomas Patrick Melady, appointed by President George H. W. Bush as the third Ambassador, served from 1989 to 1993. He was a former University President, US Ambassador and an Assistant Secretary for Post Secondary Education.

President Clinton appointed in the spring of 1993, the Hon. Raymond Flynn, who was mayor of Boston and a former head of the Association of US urban mayors. The Hon. Corinne (Lindy) Boggs, widow of Hale Boggs, Speaker of the House, succeeded him in 1997. She also served for nine terms in the US Congress.

The appointment of national figures to this position started in the personal representative period. President Roosevelt appointed Myron Taylor, retired Chairman of the US Steel Corporation, as his personal representative in 1939. President Nixon appointed Henry Cabot Lodge and President Carter selected Robert F. Wagner, a former mayor of New York City.

Early History

In the first years of the United States, the new Republic had contacts with the Papal States. During that period, Papal authority extended over the territory of central Italy. However, the recognition by the United States did not include any perception of the Holy See and its unique international personality.

The consular relations established by the United States in March 1797 with the Papal States, whose capital was Rome, were reciprocated at the same consular level in 1826 when the Papal States established a consulate in New York City. President James Polk proposed in 1848 that the United States extend formal de jure recognition to the Papal States and appointed a Chargé d'Affaires. Mr. Jacob I. Martin presented his credentials to the Pope Pius IX in Rome on August 19, 1848. Mr. Martin was followed in a period of nineteen years by five other diplomats. They were: Lewis Cass, Jr., 1849-1858; John P. Stockton, 1858-1861; Alexander W. Randell, 1861-1862; Richard M. Blatchford, 1862-1863; and, Rufus King, 1863-1867.

Rufus King was the last minister resident to the Papal States. He left his post in August 1867. Beginning in that year, it would not have been possible to fund such a diplomatic post, as Congress in that year prohibited the financing of any diplomatic post to the Papal authority. Furthermore, with the incorporation of the Papal States into Italy (following Garibaldi's unification of Italy and virtual imprisonment of Pius IX), the United States would not have had a basis for its recognition, since control of territory was an intrinsic part of its original recognition of the Papal States. The international personality role of the Holy See and the unique role of the Pope himself were not part of the act of US recognition (at that time).

Mr. King's departure from Rome in 1867 initiated a long interregnum of seventy-two years when the United States did not have a diplomatic representative to the Pope. There was little or no indication that this absence of diplomatic contact would end until the Franklin Roosevelt Administration launched the concept of a "personal representative of the President." It is interesting to note that the long absence of diplomatic representation coincided with the period of strong anti-Catholicism in the United States. It was a time when an increasing number of immigrants from predominantly Catholic countries were arriving, and there was a strong negative reaction against the Irish, the French, the Italians, the Spanish and the Germans-all those from predominantly Catholic countries. The literature at the time was full of highly intemperate and in many cases vicious characterization of the leadership of the Catholic Church. It is hard to imagine that there could be any kind of approval by the US Congress for a diplomatic representative to the Pope under the circumstances of late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the United States.

The question of the sovereignty of the Vatican City State was cleared up in 1929. The Lateran Treaty of that year established that the Republic of Italy recognized the sovereignty of the Vatican City State.

Personal Representative to the Pope

President Roosevelt announced on December 24, 1939, that he intended to send a personal representative to the Pope. The same announcement also included the news that he wanted closer contacts with the leaders of the major faiths. Thus, on Christmas Eve 1939, he informed the President of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ and the President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America that he would be maintaining contact with them on ways to promote peace.

The appointment to the Protestant and Jewish organizations were cover operations for the real plan that Roosevelt had in mind: US diplomatic contacts with the Vatican in Rome.

There was considerable opposition in the United States to this action of President Roosevelt. Since the appointment did not require Senate approval, there was no way to focus a national campaign against it. Some of the opposition was rooted in sincere concern about the constitutional implications of the appointment.

Few took the pains to point out that the recognition of other state leaders, who also had important roles as heads of Churches or religious leaders, such as (at that time) the Emperor of Japan, the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emperor of Ethiopia and the British Monarch did not prevent their recognition as leaders of sovereign states.

And there was the clear case of unabashed anti-Catholicism. In 1939, Catholics were not members of the American political power establishment. But President Roosevelt appreciated the geopolitical significance of the Vatican and pushed through his appointment of Myron Taylor, retired corporate leader and an Episcopal lay leader. President Roosevelt's special representative arrived in Rome when Nazi Germany was scoring victories on the war front in 1940.

Taylor in Rome

Mr. Taylor, once he arrived in Rome, was regarded as the US Ambassador. He served for ten years, which covered the World War II period. Taylor had easy access to the Pope and, of course, top Vatican officials. His office was a source of important information to the United States. He was able to influence the Holy See in 1945 to immediately recognize the dangers of the communist Soviet Union expansion.

Following the retirement of Myron Taylor, President Truman decided to open up a full Embassy of the United States to the Vatican. He nominated General Mark Clark as the US Ambassador in 1951.

Opposition to the nomination mounted quickly. The opposition did not focus on the credentials of General Clark but on the recognition of a "Church" by the US government. The Truman Administration did not do well in explaining the existence of the Vatican City State as a sovereign state.

The high emotional overtones of the opposition were sufficient to torpedo the attempt to establish full diplomatic relations between the United States and the Papal authority.

In 1952, President Truman decided not to summit the nomination of General Clark to the formal confirmation process. Another 18 years would pass before a US President would attempt to name any kind of diplomat to the Vatican.

President Nixon broke the long interregnum in 1969 and appointed Henry Cabot Lodge as his personal representative, and President Carter sent a former New York City mayor to the Vatican.

Action by President Reagan

Within months of President Reagan's inaugural in 1981, it became known that he was looking into the challenges of establishing full diplomatic relations with the Vatican. One of the first steps taken by President Reagan was to obtain the repeal of the 1868 law which prohibited the expenditure of funds for an Embassy to the Vatican. He was successful in obtaining the repeal. There was no real opposition, and this was interpreted as a favorable sign for those who favored full diplomatic relations.

President Reagan moved quickly and on January 10, 1984, announced that full diplomatic relations between the United States and the Vatican had been established. The President did this over the opposition of the office of the Secretary of State.

What a difference 32 years could make! In 1952 there were demonstrations and loud opposition. In 1984, there were few manifestations against the Vatican or Catholicism. The nomination of Ambassador Wilson was approved by a landslide vote.

Since the Senate vote in 1984, there has been no opposition in the Senate to subsequent nominations. Several attempts were made to challenge the establishment of diplomatic relations in the courts; they were unsuccessful.

When Ambassador Lindy Boggs, the very popular fifth US Ambassador, took leave of her duties as Ambassador on March 1, 2001, 174 states recognized the Holy See. The structures of US-Vatican diplomatic relations are safe and sound.

Opposition to the diplomatic role of the Holy See appeared on another front in 2000. A group of individuals and organizations attempted to influence the United Nations (UN) to reduce the status of the Observer Mission of the Holy See to that of a non-governmental organization (NGO). There was an avalanche of support for the Holy See to support its Observer status at the United Nations.

One of those speaking strongly in favor of the Holy See role at the UN was the Hon. George W. Bush, then the Governor of Texas. It is widely believed that the new Ambassador representing President George W. Bush, will begin his duties at the Vatican with a warm and welcoming reception.'

*

And today in 2022- we know for a fact that the Papacy is held in very high regard. The Pope visited the USA in 2015, and He continues to be very visible on the political/religious world stage as a man of great influence. The system of the Papacy put into place is described without a doubt in prophetic history as a tool of Satan. To many those words would make me a heretic worthy of condemnation- those who are deceived. God help us all to study! Not just hold fast to our cherished beliefs and traditions! Study to know ONLY TRUTH!

God help us all!

*

Yes. The deadly wound is healed.

Daniel Chapter 7 Pt 6

 Continuing with the explanation of the prophetic Fourth Beast in Daniel 7 - the Little Horn in particular.

Dan 7:25  And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. 

A Time and Times and the Dividing of Time

"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? 

(The following is a rather detailed, fact-filled explanation for the meaning of a time and times and the dividing of time. Please take the time to read this simply because these are people more competent in language, unless you too are a Biblical expert.)

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., hmisu) half a year. Gesenius also gives " [the same in Chald.,] a half. Dan. 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 iddan, which Gesenius defines thus: "Time. Spec. in prophetic language for a year. Dan. 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. Eze. 4: 6; Num. 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. [iddan] denotes both time and year; and as in English several words signifying time, weight, measure, are likewise used to denote certain specified 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 0strogoths, 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. 

Note: This was true as to the writing from which this study is based upon made in 1897, however, the papacy has been fully re-established to its former power "the deadly wound" is now fully healed as of the reign Mussolini in Italy around 1929.] Thus again this power fulfils to the very letter the specifications of the prophecy, which proves beyond question that the application is correct. 

Also to note, while the Papacy today (2022) is powerful with influence, political and religious, it is not the same as it was before 1798. There was a time even in our country (the United States) that to be Catholic wasn't a great thing. Protestants fled to this country to get away from religious persecution. The Reformation in the 1500's and onward, resulting in the Protestant Religion- those protesting against Catholicism- evolving into many different denominations, but all opposed to Catholicism.  Today Catholicism has one of the largest number of believers- proving that the deadly wound dealt to the papacy was healed over. The papacy today is revered by many of ALL different faiths. 

Dan 7:26  But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. 

The Judgment Shall Sit.

After describing the terrible career of the little born, 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 Dan. 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. 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 Rev. 13: 3, to come upon this power; but this deadly wound was to be "healed."

To be continued….

Daniel Chapter 7 Pt 5

 The fourth beast is most troublesome because it is not like any other beast in existence. Lions, bears, leopards are all animals known to mankind, but this fourth beast defied description related to a known animal. Daniel needed to know more about this beast different from all others.

Teeth made of iron. Nails made of brass. It devoured and broke into pieces and even stamped on what was left of its prey. This beast had ten horns. But not forever. Three of those ten horns are displaced but a little horn that had eyes and a mouth that could speak. 

We need to know positively what this fourth beast represents and if you read yesterday's study you have a pretty good idea. 

We know Rome came up after Greece and Rome divided into ten kingdoms. More history proves three of those ten kingdom were displaced because they defied Papal Rome. IT'S HISTORY, not me making up nonsense to fit some silly theory.

Synopsis-(Their existence was prophesized - their reality came to pass) Babylon, Medes Persia, Greece, Rome (Pagan & Papal) 

All of this was prophesized! We aren't taking weird puzzle pieces and trying to force them into our puzzle to complete it. These puzzle pieces are falling into their proper places. 

Let's continue on and have the Bible speak for itself in so many ways, and prayerfully we are all guided only to truth!

(Little Horn) Remember this little horn is the horn on the fourth beast that displaced three of its ten horns- that fourth beast, that fourth kingdom that came into power after Greece was Rome. Rome has two distinct phases... Pagan and then Papal. 

Dan 7:25  And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. 

Dan 7:26  But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. 

Dan 7:27  And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. 

Dan 7:28  Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart

*

"He shall speak great words against the Most High." 

Has the papacy done this? Beyond a doubt it has.

Look at such self-approved titles of the pope as "Vicegerent of the Son of God," and "Lord God, the Pope."- See gloss on the Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, title 14, ch. 4, "Declaramus." Said Pope Nicholas to Emperor Michael, "The pope can never be bound or loosed by the secular power, since it is plain that he was called God by the pious prince Constantine; . . . and it is manifest that God can not be judged by man." - Decreti Prima Pars. Distinctio XCVI, Caput 8.

Is there need of bolder blasphemy than this?  Truly we cannot claim this is ANCIENT history and that it means nothing today. It means that no matter how ancient it is, it is history! It happened! Don't bury your head in the sand simply because the papacy today wants to pretend their past means nothing at all. If that past answers to prophetic history it cannot be tossed aside, it just can't.

Note also the adulation the popes have received from their followers without rebuke. 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, on 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."

Little Horn to "Wear Out the Saints of the Most High."

Has the papacy done this? Again, beyond a doubt it has. 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.

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 and orthodox Christians were slain in less than thirty years after the institution of the order of the Jesuits. The Duke 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."

Commenting on the prophecy that the little horn should "wear out the saints of the Most High," Barnes, in his Notes on Dan. 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 of 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, or 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 anyone 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.)

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.)

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."

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 thy 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.

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 that church's bloody work.

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 tbe grave with infamy; and earth had one murderer, one persecutor, less, and hell one victim more. 0 Rome! what will not be thy hell, and that of thy votaries, when thy judgment shall have come! "

Of note today- http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0029.html

Issue: What role did the inquisition play in the Catholic Church?

Response: According to Pope John Paul II, "The Inquisition belongs to a tormented phase in the history of the Church, which . . . Christians [should] examine in a spirit of sincerity and open-mindedness."1 To assess the Inquisition properly, we must distinguish between the principle which undergirded it, and the actions of those responsible for implementing the principle. The principle - that the Church must guard the faith against deviations - is an obligation of divine law (cf. Mt. 18:18; 2 Tim. 1:14). The actions taken to implement the process sometimes were questionable and even deplorable. Yet, because of centuries of misinformation, we must take care to distinguish fact from fiction.

Assessing the Inquisition

The principle upon which the Inquisition was built is entirely defensible; indeed, Catholics everywhere have the duty to defend it. The Church was given by Christ Himself the mission of safeguarding the deposit of faith from distortion or corruption (cf. Mt. 28:16-20; Mk. 16:14-20; Jn. 21:15-19; 1 Thess. 2:13; Jude 3; Catechism, nos. 84-90, 172-75, 813-16).

To torture? To kill? To by any means get people to follow? No where in the Bible does Jesus ask anyone to get people to believe in that manner. So while the Catholics defend their position on the inquisition today by believing they were ordained to do so, it only further exemplifies the fact the papacy even today believes itself to be like the 'Most High'. They reaffirm what was prophetically foretold by Daniel thousands of years ago. How they distort the word of God to suit their purposes. It's more proof that indeed the papacy is that little horn speaking such great and blasphemous things.

Little Horn to "Think to Change Times and Laws." Beyond doubt another Papal action that fits perfectly.

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. See Catholic catechisms

To be continued….

100 % Accuracy- Bible Prophecy (Daniel 7 Continued)

 How important is history to prophecy? A person's history at predicting things is important should you be curious about their ability to prophesize, right? If you want to get a prophecy from someone you would look at their track record which would include reading the history of their past interactions. Right now we have things called 'Reviews' on everything from products we might consider buying, to shows we might want to watch, to places you might want to go to eat, drink, sleep, or for recreation. You know what I'm talking about. People scarcely decide to go somewhere new where they are going to spend their hard earned money without checking it out first. We search the internet for reviews- people who have had the experience with the people, places or things we are interested in. Their history with the aforementioned things gives us insight. The more money we are considering spending often determines just how deeply we are going to search out proper reviews. We want to know as much as we can about something before we invest in it. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!  So, what does this have to do with our studying? The reason I hope you are studying is to KNOW TRUTH. The reason I hope you are studying is because we are told by Jesus we will be blessed, and you want to be blessed by Jesus. The reason I hope you are studying is because you know that we are to, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15   I hope you are studying to know the love of God so perfectly given to us in His word.  If you are studying for these reasons then you know the importance of what you are doing. If we can spend sometimes hours reviewing things online before we commit to spending our money, time, effort, how much more time should we be spending studying the Word of God, as we desire to do as our Lord and Savior would have us do?  I'm saying this to impress upon you  the need to NOT look at this study as tedious and too long to read, too much to get into, because that is what Satan wants you to do. Satan wants you to discount the knowledge of history as being completely unimportant when it comes to salvation. Satan would rather have you toss all this knowledge away as meaningless, than have you study to know truth. Prophecy goes hand in hand with history and if we can see from history that there is so far a 100% accuracy rating on prophecies that have come to pass through time, we do not have to have ANY doubt whatsoever that the rest of the prophecies will come to pass just as they've been written.  If you can get a 100% rating in a review with thousands having reviewed something, you would have no doubt about believing what you were setting out to do would be a good thing.  We need to know truth, facts, and prophecy with history reveals that we can know without doubt what lies ahead for mankind.  God help us, bless us as we seek to know His truth and do His will always! 

Continuing on with our study-

Daniel 7:13,14 'I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.'

Jesus receives His kingdom.

Read Luke 19:10-12- 'For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. {19:11} And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. {19:12} He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.'

Obviously this is in the Heavenly Sanctuary, in the heavenly temple, when the close of the priestly work is over, all people, nations, languages shall serve Him. None of the wicked. Jesus goes to a far country to receive for Himself the kingdom and then to return.

READ Daniel 7:15-18 -'I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. 16. I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. 17. These great beasts, which are four, are four kings which shall arise out of the earth. 18. But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.'

This vision that troubled Daniel was interpreted for him. He wanted to understand the truth, we too want to understand it all. The one interpreting the vision says, 'These great beasts, which are four, are four kings which shall arise out of the earth.' We understand through history itself of the four great kingdoms that reigned on Earth. It's plain to see if you study history how this is so and has come to pass.

What happens after the fourth kingdom is finally destroyed?

'But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.'

God's saints. The righteous in God. Those first in the kingdom are the least here and now, servants.

This will come to pass as well, just as all that was predicted prior to this has come to pass. Nothing can stop the prophecy from being fulfilled.

READ Daniel 7:19,20 - 'Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; 20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.'

Daniel wanted to know the 'truth of the fourth beast' the fourth kingdom. He understood the other three beasts previously described but the fourth held some confusion for him. Seriously, it is no wonder that the ancient kingdoms were easy for him to understand, they would not last nearly as long, or be nearly as horrific and unnatural as the fourth beast. The fourth kingdom would last in part clear to the end of time, clear to our day and age.

The first kingdom like a lion- he knew what lions were and the nature of lions.

The second kingdom like at bear- he knew what a bear was and the nature of a bear.

The third kingdom like a leopard- yes, he knew was a leopard was and the nature of a leopard.

And he understood that winds meant strife, that wings swiftness- this wasn't some terrible creature he'd never seen before. Bears with ribs, yes understandable. Leopards with wings, understandable as well. But there is no natural animal symbol for Daniel to compare to the fourth beast, the fourth kingdom, such a creature doesn't exist in any form.

The fourth kingdom like a beast dreadful and terrible, nails of brass, teeth of iron, but what beast holds these elements of cruelty, of fierceness? Daniel hadn't a clue.

Then a little horn would come up out of this beast, thrusting aside three of the ten horns it had on its head. And the horn had eyes! Horns didn't have eyes! This horn had eyes of a man and a mouth! A horn with a mouth speaking proud, arrogant claims.

It wasn't any wonder Daniel wanted to understand this fourth beast, this fourth kingdom better than he did. So in even more symbolic language he is told more about the beast. Symbolic and yet as history is the key to understanding, it is just that, understandable without any mistaking.

READ Daniel 7:21,22 - 'I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 22. Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.'

The little horn on the fourth beast was going to make war with the saint and prevail against them and it would do so until the Ancient of days was come.

The rise of the fourth kingdom which we know to be Rome, which conquered Greece, and then the division of Rome eventually into ten kingdoms happened between 351-476 AD. History- all history. The ten horns- ten kingdoms all existing at the same time, the little horn- another kingdom but obviously not anything like the other kingdoms.

Kingdoms are political as a rule. Babylon, Medes-Persia, Greece, Rome, ten kingdoms it divided into, all politically gained, all sharing that sameness. has any kingdom come up among the ten kingdoms of the Roman empire since 476 AD? A kingdom different from all the others? Yes? No? The answer is, yes. This kingdom wasn't political in nature but spiritual. This kingdom that was different from all the others was the kingdom of the Papacy. Never before was there such a kingdom, never. This power, this kingdom is proven in its very symbols.

READ Daniel 7:23 - 'Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.'

Truthfully has there ever been a kingdom, a power such as the papacy which had made war unlike any other kingdom? Fifty million martyrs. History proves this cruel persecution. History of the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and Protestants in general, by the papal power.

It is stated on good authority that the persecutions, massacres, and religious martyrs by the church and bishop of Rome, have shed far more blood of the saints of the Most High any other kingdom. Century after century, after century of persecutions.

READ Daniel 7:23-26 - 'Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and. shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. 24. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise; and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. 25. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. 26. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.'

More details of the fourth beast, the fourth kingdom, the fourth ruler.

The little horn- wants attention, wants power. The first bishops of Rome had high rank. Read this-- "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'Aubigne, 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."

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'Aubigne, "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."

Keep reading- History tells the tale-

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 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 Nievea, 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.)

The Arians became bitter enemies of the pope and the Roman Catholic Church, history shows this to be true. While the Arian's would get the upper hand remember what prophecy states- the little horn would uproot three horns. Read this-

From Albert Barnes which seems very appropriate when discussing the papacy overthrowing three Arian kingdoms. '"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.

Mr. Joseph Mede believes this- he 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 Albert 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.

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 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.

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.

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."

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."

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, UIfilas. 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.

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 the patriarchal diocese."

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."

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, see. 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 these 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."

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. 1, 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, 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.

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 Heralian 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.

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. 1, p. 325.

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.

The feelings of the papal party toward Theodoric may be accurately estimated, according to a quotation already given, by the vengeance which the 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! " - Bower, Vol. I, p. 328; Compare Baronius' Annals, A. D. 526, p. 116.

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. 371 see. 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."

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, 533-534, and the Italian campaign, 534 - 538, will notice that the Catholics everywhere hailed as deliverers the army of Belisarius, the general of Justinian.

The testimony of D'Aubigne (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 11 and of Valerian III proclaimed the Roman bishop 'rector of the whole church.' Justinian published a similar decree."

But no decree of this nature could be carried into effect until the Arian horns which stood in its way were overthrown. The Vandals fell before the victorious arms of Belisarius in 534; and the Goths received a crushing blow in connection with their unsuccessful siege of Rome in 538. (Gibbon, chap. 41)

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' Eccl. Hist., book 4, chap. 16.

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.

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 Alemanni 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.

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.

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 553. The effective opposition of the Ostrogoths to the decree of Justinian, however, it is to be noted, ceased when they were driven from Rome by Belisarius in 538.

To Be Continued…..