I'm Not Making This Up.

 Directly from the BIBLE- the beast with seven heads and ten horns-  NOT a Hollywood movie, not a best seller fiction tale, not a weekly drama, but REALITY. There is NO fiction involved here, not a single bit. The Beast. When that word is spoken you instantly envision a creature beast with seven heads and ten horns, a monster ready for a Godzilla movie, right? You can picture this. Yet the Bible isn't a work of fiction (no matter how many people would have others believe so). This is REALITY, yet… the reality of it is that this monster, this beast is SYMBOLIC, as prophecy often is. Symbolic meaning it represents something else. There is NO monster with seven heads and ten horns making an appearance, not ever! Not the huge beasts we've conjured up in our imaginations and brought to life on television, in theaters, in many books, and all matter of media out there- video games and so on. 

To get to the reality of this beast we've had to turn to the Bible itself and search out the meaning of the symbols. The Bible explains it all, giving us all the details we'd need to with use historical fact to bring it all to the light of comprehension, the light of truth.

Rev 13:1  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.

Dan 7:7  After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had TEN HORNS. 

Dan 7:8  I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things

If you read those verse above then you read about a beast with ten horns, then you read about a beast with three of those horns being plucked up by a little horn that had the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking great things.

We've detailed in our previous studies of the current (lengthy) study how this all falls into line with prophetic truth, historical fact and it represents Papal Rome.  I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP! I'm not saying any of this to disparage anyone! I have NO reason to do so, I GAIN NOTHING by lying, not a thing! HISTORY, don’t believe me, believe the Word of God and Historical fact! 

Today's study goes further to solidify the corruption of Papal history in the early church back in the 500-600's AD. By this time the church was deep into deception and unrecognizable as anything truly holy. Jesus would NEVER ever, ever have condone the things the church grew into so quickly after He left earth for heaven, never! Remember, Jesus told His Apostles, His disciples, that this world was not what we live for, but for heaven and the world to come, the promise of the Kingdom of heaven. 

Joh_16:33  These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Tribulation in this world, this is the truth. Jesus did NOT set up any kind of reigning kingdom upon earth and if that was His intention He would have done so! He was HUMBLE, He would NEVER have gathered riches to himself, NEVER! He never wanted any CIVIL POWER at all! He NEVER wanted to be dictator to people, punishing them vilely for not serving Him!  NEVER! That wasn't JESUS! How DARE anyone, ANYONE assume they have the right to FORCE belief on anyone at all! Jesus never forced a single person to believe in Him, never. But people DARE to do all the time, ALL the time! The sheer number of people tortured brutally and put to death by the Papacy is unbelievable. There is NO way that organization could be of God, none, and still… it explains away it's horrors as if they are inconsequential to what they still claim to be. They claim reform, yet their very history prophetically condemns them should they dare face truth.

May God help us only seek TRUTH! Please LORD, let this continued 100,000 piece puzzle we are putting together give us a comprehension that leaves no doubt to YOUR truth!

All through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, now and forever!  AMEN!!!!!!!

*******

CHAPTER XI. THE BEAST WITH SEVEN HEADS AND TEN HORNS - Continued…

(As was said by Gieseler, the pope was already "the only center of Catholic Christendom in the West," and Justinian's letter and gifts fully accomplished the same result for the pontiff, in the East. The following is a copy of that part of the letter which specially relates to this point:--)

Continued excerpt from letter- 

Then followed a statement at length of the case in dispute, in the spirit and style of theological disputes of that age. He presented his request as follows:-- 

"We entreat, therefore, your fatherly love, that in your letters designed for us,--and to the holy bishops of this blessed city, and to the patriarch, your brother, since he, too, of himself, through them the messenger bishops of the emperor, has written to your Holiness, hastening in all things to follow the apostolical chair of your Blessedness,--you make manifest to us, that all we rightly confess aforementioned, your Holiness accepts."

But beyond a doubt it is safe to judge that it was not altogether "of himself" that the patriarch of Constantinople professed in all things to follow the apostolical chair of his Roman rival. It was out of complaisance to Justinian. After the death of this emperor, the patriarch of Constantinople made still further efforts to secure the honors of the primacy. The act of Justinian, causing the patriarch of the imperial city to write so obliging a letter to the Roman pontiff, was an important one in the work of subjecting all the priests of the East to the Roman see.

The matter of this letter to the pope is worthy of careful consideration.

1. The emperor renders homage to the apostolical chair of Rome.

2. It was his desire to preserve the unity of his apostolical authority.

3. He subjected and united to the pope all the priests of the whole East.

4. He would not suffer anything to be done in the churches without the knowledge of his holiness.

5. He declared the bishop of Rome to be the head of all the holy churches.

6. He was anxious to increase the honor and authority of his apostolical chair.

7. He announces the submission of the patriarch of Constantinople to the pontiff.

And to this may be added that, in a letter to Epiphanius, about the same time, he declared that the pope was the "head of all bishops and the true and effective corrector of heretics." 

Croly on the Apocalypse. Every sentence is strong, and the last declaration is a seal to all the others.

Let us notice in connection the four steps in establishing the complete power of the papacy.

1. The primacy of the whole church, which was as extensive as the empire of Constantine, was given to the bishop of Rome.

2. He was made a civil magistrate of the highest rank.

3. The seat of the empire was removed from Rome to Constantinople, thus virtually leaving the old capital to the pope, and which soon became a fact.

4. All the bishops and all the churches of the whole East were subjected and united to him, he being already the center of Christendom in the West. 

In these steps, nothing was lacking to enable him to exercise all the power that he claimed; for in these he was granted the most complete spiritual authority, with the civil power necessary to make that authority effective. 

What do historians say of the action of Justinian in behalf of the pope? That which has been quoted from Gibbon in another place is well worth repeating in this connection. Speaking of the success of Belisarius in suppressing Arianism in Africa, he said of Justinian:--

"He received the messengers of victory at the time when he was preparing to publish the Pandects of the Roman law; and the devout or jealous emperor celebrated the divine goodness, and confessed in silence the merit of his successful general. Impatient to abolish the temporal and spiritual tyranny of the Vandals, he proceeded, without delay, to the full establishment of the Catholic Church. Her jurisdiction, wealth, and immunities, perhaps the most essential part of episcopal religion, were restored and amplified with a liberal hand; the Arian worship was suppressed; the Donatist meetings were proscribed; and the synod of Carthage, by the voice of two hundred and seventeen bishops, applauded the just measure of pious retaliation." Decline and Fall, chap. 41, paragraph 11.

These words of Gibbon refer to much more than the mere letter to the pope, important as that was. Gieseler enumerates some of the particular facts of Justinian in "the full establishment of the Catholic Church." 

He speaks as follows:--

"The clergy, and particularly the bishops, received new privileges from Justinian. He intrusted the latter with civil jurisdiction over the monks and nuns, as well as over the clergy. Episcopal oversight of morals, and particularly the duty of providing for all the unfortunate, had been established till the present time only on the foundation of ecclesiastical laws; but Justinian now gave them a more general basis, founding them on the civil law also. He made it the duty of the bishops, and gave them the necessary civil qualifications, to undertake the care of prisoners, minors, insane persons, foundlings, stolen children, and oppressed women; and invested them with the power of upholding good morals and impartial administration of justice. It is true, that he established a mutual inspection of the bishops and the civil magistrates; but he gave in this respect to the latter considerable smaller privileges than to the former. For example, he gave the bishops a legal influence over the choice of magistrates, and security against general oppression on their part; allowed them to interfere in cases of refusal of justice; and in special instances, even constituted them judges of those official personages. In like manner he conveyed to them the right of concurrence in the choice of city officials, and a joint oversight of the administration of city funds, and the maintenance of public establishments. Thus the bishops became important personages even in civil life; and were further honored by Justinian, in freedom from parental violence, from the necessity of appearing as witnesses, and from taking oaths." Gieseler, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 2, pp. 117-119, Clark, Edinburgh, 1848.

 

It is true that these privileges were for all bishops; all were, in material points, elevated above other magistrates; and in this respect, the grants of Justinian  were a great enlargement of the civil powers granted by Constantine, as already noticed. By these the church was elevated far above the civil department of the government; and if such were the prerogatives of all bishops, what must have been the effect on the standing of him who was declared by imperial authority to be "the head of all bishops"? He was aptly styled "the chief Christian magistrate." And this implied much under the peculiar condition of the country, broken up by contending armies. All the steps herein noticed for the elevation of the Roman pontiff, were by authority of the emperors and councils, and not one of them was ever reversed or annulled. It has been assumed that we must come further down, to the time of Phocas, and to his action of 606, for the full establishment of the papacy. But for this there is no just reason. Phocas, according to all history, was one of the most depraved of men, the vilest of murderers and usurpers. Gibbon gives a description of his person and crimes, which we have room to barely notice:--

"The pencil of an impartial historian [Cedrenas] has delineated the portrait of a monster; his diminutive and deformed person. . . . Ignorant of letters, of laws, and even of arms, he indulged in the supreme rank a more ample privilege of lust and drunkenness; and his brutal pleasures were either injurious to his subjects or disgraceful to himself."

After describing his murder of all the family of the Emperor Maurice, he speaks of his treatment of other victims as follows:-- 

"Their condemnation was seldom preceded by the forms of trial, and their punishment was imbittered by the refinements of cruelty; their eyes were pierced, their tongues were torn from the root, the hands and feet were amputated; some expired under the lash, others in the flames, others again were transfixed with arrows; and a simple speedy death was mercy which they could rarely obtain."

Decline and Fall, chap. 46, paragraph 12.

Maurice, the predecessor of Phocas, favored the claim of the patriarch of Constantinople to the primacy. This, of course, highly incensed Gregory the Great, who had, until that time, been considered one of the best of Roman bishops. Upon the usurpation of Phocas, Gregory sought his friendship, hoping that through him the influence of Maurice might be counteracted. Gregory disgraced his memory by writing the most extravagant laudation of the inhuman monster, calling upon all the earth and the angels in Heaven to rejoice over the accession of an emperor so truly just and pious.  Infallibility in the popes does not guarantee truthfulness and discernment of character. We see this also in the case of Leo the Great, who declared, in his letter to Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, that he discovered in him great love and Christian graces. Dioscorus was one of the worst bishops of his age, which is putting him very low; avaricious, ambitious, and blood-thirsty; Leo himself was compelled to depose him. More shameful yet is the case of Gregory, who professed to find almost celestial purity in Phocas. He also wrote a letter to Leontia, the wife of Phocas, who, according to history, was as vile as her husband, ascribing to her like Christian graces, and plainly asking her to make proof of her piety by remembering with favor the see of St. Peter, on whom the Saviour had conferred such blessings. Just what Gregory desired can never be known, for he had denounced the title of universal bishop, claimed by the bishop of Constantinople, as the token of heresy, the very badge of antichrist. Had the emperor transferred that title to the West, whether then he would not have found sufficient reason to change his mind, or to modify his denunciations, as Baronius has done for him, is a question; for the instance was never known of a bishop of Rome refusing anything that added to the dignity of that see.

The bearer of Gregory's letter to Phocas was a priest who afterwards became pope under the name of Boniface III. It is recorded that he was the only one base enough to applaud and flatter Phocas in the very commission of his crimes. He became the favorite of Phocas and his wife, and when he came to the papal chair he is said to have requested the emperor to deprive the patriarch of Constantinople of the title which he had claimed, and confer it upon himself and his successors in the chair of St. Peter. And this, it is asserted, Phocas did more readily because the bishop of Constantinople had resisted him in his cruelties to the wife and daughter of Maurice. But nothing was granted by Phocas that had not already been conferred. The primacy and chief rank of Rome had been declared and twice confirmed before the time of Justinian, and this emperor constituted him the head of all the churches and of all bishops, with many other privileges of which it is not claimed that Phocas said anything. And, moreover, just what Phocas did declare is a matter of doubt.

Bower says: "As for the edict issued by Phocas on this occasion, it has not indeed reached our times." And Gieseler, whose reliability will not be questioned, says:--

"It is commonly asserted, and by men of the greatest learning and best acquainted with ancient history, that the Roman pontiff, Boniface III., prevailed on that abominable tyrant Phocas, who, after murdering the Emperor Mauritius, mounted the imperial throne, to divest the bishop of Constantinople of the title of eúcumenical bishop, and to confer it on the Roman pontiff. But this is stated solely on the authority of Baronius; for no ancient writer has given such testimony. Yet Phocas did something analogous to this, if we may believe Anastasius and Paul Diaconus. For whereas the bishops of Constantinople had maintained that their church was not only fully equal to that of Rome, but had precedence of all other churches, Phocas forbade this, and determined that the priority of rank and dignity should be given the Church of Rome." Ecclesiastical History, Book 2,

Cent. 17, Part 2, chap. 2.

That Boniface III. was ambitious and unscrupulous, is shown in his flattery of Phocas. His unbounded arrogance led him to attach much more to the title, probably, than had his predecessors. And no honor conferred upon or claimed by the bishop of Rome was ever relinquished. But we have searched diligently, and in vain, to find anything granted by Phocas authentically established, which had not then already been conferred. Gibbon speaks the exact truth when he says that Justinian proceeded "to the full establishment of the Catholic Church." 

Truth or Consequences.

 Truth or Consequences. What does that mean to you? It's a trivial game right? Tell the truth or face the consequences. In reality without the truth that we find in our Lord and Savior,  and in His word, the consequences are far from trivial, and most certainly not a game. There are eternal consequences to our decisions. We don't want to think about that, we like to imagine that we can do things that just don't matter in the grand scheme of things. All our decisions matter, all. We need to seek forgiveness for our daily sins, a true repentance, daily because we know the consequences of our actions, our decisions are eternally important. We need to believe that we have a Savior who will forgive us, but never forget we need to seek forgiveness from Him, not assume forgiveness, never forget His unending love towards us! His mercy, His grace!

Amen!!!!!!!

(Quick synopsis of the following- In 500'sAD, hundreds of years after Jesus' and the Apostles' deaths, the church lost its first love entirely. The corruption started when the Bishop of Rome was left at Rome when the throne of the empire was moved to Constantinople. Rome still remained the seat of importance and the Bishop there retained the power of the church and held great sway with the politics of the day. Through much deception and bribe taking in the form of gifts bestowed upon the powers that be and such, the corruption only grew more and more. What God intended, what our Savior wanted for His church was gone. The detailed historical proofs of this are given below. Please read it so you have the knowledge you need. We need facts, not suppositions. We need facts not fallacy. We need to know why we believe the way we believe. There is proof, please pray for comprehension. We all need to pray, pray and pray some more. Satan is ever ready to deceive. The Papacy today believes it is everything because they claim the Apostle Peter as its original head. It doesn't take much to bring corruption into truth. Yet so few want to know the real truth. The following is just a continuing excerpt of our study… there is so much to learn.) 

CHAPTER XI. THE BEAST WITH SEVEN HEADS AND TEN HORNS

Continued..

But the work was not yet complete. Others were ambitious as well as the bishop of Rome, and with the throne of the empire at Constantinople, that became actually the imperial city. For this reason the bishop of Constantinople thought that he should be first in rank. True, the primacy was conferred upon the bishop of Rome at the Council of Nice, but great changes had taken place since that time, and other bishops, but especially the bishop of Constantinople, strove for the highest honors. And everything seemed favorable to his purpose. An orthodox emperor, ambitious and powerful, was reigning in Constantinople. The Arians held Italy, though under a mild sway; but the neighboring country of Africa was not only under the rule of the Arians, but they were faithfully following the

example set them by the orthodox or Catholic party--they were persecuting their opponents in the faith. The surroundings of the pope were every way unfavorable, while everything appeared favorable to the bishop of Constantinople. But an unexpected opportunity occurred. There were divisions in the East, and Justinian was strongly favorable to the Roman see, inasmuch as Rome was the representative of the Nicene faith, and its constant defender. The condition of the so-called Christian world was most deplorable. They who read the discussions of those times cannot fail to be struck by, if not disgusted with, the quarrelings over forms of expressing distinctions which the Scriptures do not notice, and which the parties did not at all understand. It not infrequently happened that the orthodox party stood in defense of the very modes of expression which it had strenuously opposed and condemned not long before. If a form of faith was held by those to whom they took a dislike, it was immediately denounced as heretical, and this was always the key-note of persecution, and often of blood-shedding. Of that very time Bower speaks:--

"The Christian worship was now become no less idolatrous than that of the Gentiles, who therefore chose to retain their own, there being no material difference between the one and the other, between their worshiping the ancient heroes, or the modern saints; and as to the articles of belief, they were now, by the cavils and subtilities of the contending parties, rendered quite unintelligible to the Christians themselves."

That to which we have previously referred must now be noticed more in detail. The expression, "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh," was the subject of contention between Justinian and the monks of the East. That expression, though perfectly orthodox all down the ages of the church, had been condemned by Pope Hormisdas; but Justinian, who delighted in controversies on such distinctions, had adopted it. The monks, having the decision of a former pope on their side, had no doubt of an easy triumph if they appealed to the pope. But they were not as wise by experience in the devious ways of papal infallibility as they afterwards became. Bower gives the issue of the controversy thus:--

"The emperor no sooner heard that the monks were applying, than he too resolved to apply to the pope. Having therefore drawn up a long creed, or confession of faith, containing the disputed article among the rest, 'one of the Trinity suffered in the nesh,' he dispatched two bishops with it to Rome, Hypatius of Ephesus, and Demetrius of Philippi. At the same time he wrote a very obliging letter to the pope, congratulating him on his election, assuring him that the faith contained in the confession that he sent him, was the faith of the whole Eastern Church, and entreating him to declare, in his answer, that he received to his communion all who professed that faith, and none who did not. To add weight to his letter, he accompanied it with a present to St. Peter, consisting of several chalices, and other vessels of gold, enriched with precious stones. The deputies of the monks, and the two bishops sent by the emperor, arrived at Rome about the same time; and the pope  heard both; but, being quite at a loss what to determine, wisely declined, for the present, returning an answer to either. He was sensible that he could not condemn the doctrine of the monks without admitting the expression, which his predecessor had rejected as repugnant to the Catholic faith. But, on the other hand, he was unwilling to disoblige Justinian, and well apprised of the consequences which he had reason to apprehend from his condemning a doctrine that was held by all the bishops of the East, and the emperor himself, as an article of faith." History of the Popes, under John II. 

In this dilemma he took council of the clergy, and appealed to the wisest bishops of the time, who, after deliberation, decided that the confession of Justinian was altogether orthodox, and condemned as heretics all who denied it, or held a contrary doctrine. Thus was one infallibility contradicted by another infallibility, on a point of faith, and both remained infallible. Had the question stood the other way, had Justinian been in harmony with the decision before given by Hormisdas, the pope would not have taken a moment for consultation over the matter. To show that the popes were conscious of their power, it may be worth while here to note that Pope Agapetus, successor of John II., was not in all things so complaisant to Justinian. The emperor wrote another courteous letter to him, and

granted some favors and privileges to the pope, and asked certain favors of him in return, but these the pope denied him. But Justinian's letter to Pope John II. is that which specially demands our attention. This was written in the year 533, the same in which Belisarius went on his expedition against the Arians in Africa. But first it may be well to notice the real effect of Arian rule and Arian toleration in Italy. The popes chafed under the restraining rule of heretics, as may be judged from the fate of John I.; but the situation as set down by the historian, Gieseler, shows the direction in which

things were tending:--

"Thus, the Roman bishops were so far from being hindered by any superior power, that it proved an advantageous circumstance to them in the eyes of their new masters, that they steadfastly resisted innovations of faith made in Constantinople, till they gained a new victory over the changeable

Greeks, under the Emperor Justin. The natural consequence of this was, that while the patriarchs of Constantinople were constantly sinking in ecclesiastical esteem on account of their vacillation in these controversies, the bishops of Rome still maintained their ancient reputation of being the defenders of oppressed orthodoxy.

"Under these favorable circumstances, the ecclesiastical pretensions of Roman bishops, who now formed the only center of Catholic Christendom in the West, in opposition to the Arian conquerors, rose high without hindrance. They asserted that not only the highest ecclesiastical authority in the West belonged to them, but also superintendence of orthodoxy and maintenance of ecclesiastical laws throughout the whole church. These claims they sometimes founded on imperial edicts and decrees of synods; but for the most part on the peculiar rights conferred on Peter by the Lord. After the synodis palmaris, called by Theodoric to examine the charges newly raised by the Laurentian party against Symmachus (503), had acquitted him without examination, in consequence of the circumstances, the apologist of this synod, Ennodius, bishop of Ticinium (511), first gave utterance to the assertion that the bishop of Rome is subject to no earthly judge. Not long after an attempt was made to give a historical basis to this principle by suppositions Cesta (acts) of former popes; and other falsifications of older documents in favor of the Roman see now appeared in like manner."

Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 2, pp. 123-126.

The Encyclopedia of McClintock & Strong says that Justinian "regarded it as his special mission to compel a general uniformity of belief and practice." While the western empire was divided into many kingdoms, he was sole emperor of the East; yet he wrote, as Bower says, "a very obliging letter to the pope, . . .entreating him to declare in favor of the faith set forth by the emperor, the courtesy and the entreaty being supported by the weight of costly presents--an argument that never failed to convince the Roman bishops. This is substantial proof of the high position then already occupied by the pope.

The fourth step. The letter of Justinian to Pope John II. greatly strengthened the power of the Roman pontiff, and constituted the fourth and last step in the full establishment of the papacy. 

As was said by Gieseler, the pope was already "the only center of Catholic Christendom in the West," and Justinian's letter and gifts fully accomplished the same result for the pontiff, in the East. The following is a copy of that part of the letter which specially relates to this point:--

"Justinian, pious, fortunate, renowned, triumphant, emperor, consul, etc., to John the most holy archbishop of our city of Rome, and patriarch. "Rendering homage to the apostolic chair, and to your holiness, as has been always and is our wish, and honoring your blessedness as a father; we have hastened to bring to the knowledge of your holiness all matters relating to the state of the churches. It having been at all times our great desire to preserve the unity of your apostolic chair, and the constitution of the holy churches of God which has obtained hitherto and still obtains. "Therefore we have made no delay in subjecting and uniting to your Holiness all the priests of the whole East.

"For this reason we have thought to bring to your notice the present matters of disturbance; though they are manifest and unquestionable, and always firmly held and declared by the whole priesthood according to the doctrine of your apostolical chair. For we cannot suffer that anything that relates to the state of the church, however manifest and unquestionable, should be moved without the knowledge of your Holiness, who are the head of all the holy churches, for in all things, as we have already declared, we are anxious to increase the honor and authority of your apostolical chair." Annals of Baronius, Antwerp edition, 1584.

To be continued…

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.)

Proof.

 Wonderful history.  I say wonderful because it is knowledge that we are given and it proves prophecy.  "Proof, I want proof! Proof, I need proof! Give me proof! I will not believe without proof!"   And then… proof is offered and the tune changes.  "Your proof isn't good enough. Your proof is subjective. Your proof isn't real. You can't prove your proof."  The fact of the matter is, if someone does not want to believe they will not believe even if you give them proof. What is truly irrefutable, to them is nothing but lies because that is what they want to believe and nothing can change the belief of someone who is convicted deeply- even if that conviction is a bunch of lies. Deception is horrific. Eve was deceived. Eve was told lies by Satan and she chose to believe them because she was deceived.  Eve didn't go into the vicinity of the forbidden tree, reach up of her own accord and pluck a fruit and bite into it, she didn't. Satan was there and he wasn't a whisper in her ear but a presence, a creature of beauty, a speaking creature that used all his guile to deceive her. We have no way of knowing but it's possible she'd been around the creature Satan was possessing, remember he was a fallen angel! Deception then and deception now, Satan will take as many people down with him as possible. God help us all!

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

*******

CHAPTER X. "ANOTHER LITTLE HORN."

(SKIP this following recap of the study from the last couple days and go down to START HERE if you've already been reading.)

If you read yesterday's study then you know I spoke of the puzzle pieces of prophecy and the large overview of prophecy being considered a simple100 piece puzzle easy to put together, a quick work. While a detailed view of prophecy might be considered a 100,000 piece puzzle, much more difficult and time consuming. 

We are putting together the 100,000 piece prophetic picture here and there are many details. To pick up here and now you may need to go back to the previous study for context. We are discussing the details of Rome - pagan and papal, the Legs, Feet and Toes of Daniel's prophecy of the Babylonian king's dream statue.  Daniel was given subsequent visions expounding on this prophecy-  

(Daniel Chapter 7)

Verse 8. "I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots; and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things."

In all the Scriptures a horn is the symbol of power, without regard to the nature of the power. And there was an extraordinary power rising into notice just at the time when Western Rome was broken into these fragments or kingdoms. 

(Daniel Chapter 7)

Verse 24 says, "He shall be diverse from the first." And this was diverse from the others in that it arose as a religious, a professedly Christian, power. Although it arose as a little horn, so that it did not at first take its place among the kingdoms of the earth, it became very strong, for its "look was more stout than its fellows." 

And it is so well known that it passes without proof, that the Romish Church kingdom became stronger than the strongest kingdoms of the earth. The heads of this system, the popes of Rome, claimed it as their right to rule over the kings, and to absolve subjects from their allegiance to any king who refused submission to their will.

To be continued…  (tomorrow we'll continue with the third horn that was plucked up by Papal Rome.) 

(START HERE) (The Third of the THREE horns that prophecy said would be plucked up by the Little Horn)

The king of the Vandals was not taken, however, until the year 535, when he was brought to grace the triumph given to Belisarius in Constantinople. Yet the tide of prosperity was not altogether smooth for Justinian in his own territory. Although the Trinitarians were free from opposition by the heretics, they could not agree among themselves as to the terms in which their faith should be expressed. In other words, they quarreled about the method of defining a doctrine which none of them understood.

And this very condition was the occasion of more strife and bloodshed than any other cause that troubled the church. The Nestorians and Justinian were in open opposition to each other, and the monks resolved to appeal to the pope, where they counted on an easy triumph, inasmuch as their definition had been declared by a preceding pope, in the same terms that they used. But Justinian appealed to the pope also; and his appeal was accompanied by the weighty argument of a gift to St. Peter, consisting of several chalices, and other vessels of gold, enriched with precious stones. This, with his confession of faith, Justinian sent to the pope, with a most obsequious letter, lauding the pope in the most courtly terms, and proceeding to declare that he, the pope, was the head of all the churches; that he, the emperor, had subjected to his see all the churches of the whole East; and that the pope was the effectual corrector of heretics. It was a trying time for the pope; it was difficult for him to declare against the express words of his predecessor, and still more difficult to decide against the emperor, and all the bishops of the East who favored him. After much consultation, had, no doubt, to avoid giving offense to those of the West, it was decided in favor of Justinian.

This was indeed an eventful time for the professed see of St. Peter. Gibbon speaks thus of the action of Justinian, after the triumph of Belisarius in Africa:--

"He received the messengers of victory at the time when he was preparing to publish the Pandects of the Roman law; and the devout or jealous emperor celebrated the divine goodness, and confessed in silence, the merit of his successful general. Impatient to abolish the temporal and spiritual tyranny of the Vandals, he proceeded, without delay, to the full establishment of the Catholic Church. 

Her jurisdiction, wealth, and immunities, perhaps the most essential part of episcopal religion, were restored and amplified with a liberal hand; the Arian worship was suppressed; the Donatist meetings were proscribed; and the synod of Carthage, by the voice of two hundred and seventeen bishops, applauded the just measure of pious retaliation." Decline and Fall, chap. xli, paragraph 11.

Belisarius was next sent to subdue the Goths in Italy. He was delayed by the jealousy and ill-will of the emperor; but he entered Rome in 536, and sent the  keys of the city to Justinian as the sign that he was master of the city. But the victory was not by any means complete, as the Barbarians under Vitiges besieged Rome with Belisarius in it. The siege lasted over a year. See Gibbon and Bower.

But the siege became disastrous and unprofitable to the Barbarians. Finally, unfavorable news from Rimini caused the Gothic leader to risk one more effort before leaving the vicinity of the city; but the attack was disastrous to the besiegers, and they retreated, not soon to return. Italy was rescued to the emperor, and the third kingdom was taken away to relieve the Catholic Church, and the popes, from their heretical masters. It is true that Barbarians from time to time renewed their efforts to recover what Belisarius had taken from them. Their retreat was in 538, at which time the letter of Justinian to Pope John I., in which all the churches were subjected to his authority, became more than a hope, which it had hitherto been to the pope, for the emperor was now able to give effect to the gracious promises which he had made to the pontiff.

The prophet Daniel said of the little horn, which came up after the ten, that before him "there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots." This we have seen was accomplished between the years 493, when Odoacer was defeated and slain, which ended the reign of the Heruli, and 538, when Italy was recovered from the Ostrogoths.

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."

Four specifications are here presented, and each has been most faithfully fulfilled by the papacy. Not a power, not a prerogative, not a title, was ever given to, or claimed by, the Most High God but has been claimed by, and given to, the pope of Rome. Indeed, under the name of "that man of sin," Paul has described him as exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped. 2 Thess. 2:1-9. That he has worn out the saints of the Most High, all history attests. The Judgment-day alone will reveal the number of the victims who perished by fire, by the sword, by wild beasts, by the tortures and in the dungeons of the Inquisition. The Scriptures will never fail; the description of that power by St. Paul was written by inspiration, and has its perfect fulfillment. And what power ever fulfilled it by exalting itself as the papacy has done? What power ever wore out the saints of the Most High as that apostate church literally wore them out for long centuries? What other power ever continued long enough to hold dominion over the saints, and to make them the victims of its religious hatred and unbounded ambition, as long a time as is here given to this horn?

"And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."

This expression is easily explained.

In Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, and 32, the expression "seven times" is used. These seven times were to pass upon Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, during which he should be shut out of his kingdom, and live with the cattle, because of his pride. And Josephus, book 10, chap. 10, sec. 6, says that Nebuchadnezzar was driven out from his kingdom for seven years. And he is not the only authority for applying the word "time" to a year.

In other scriptures this period of three times and a half is so numbered that it is necessary to ascertain how many days we must count for a year. No exact measurement ever has been or ever can be adopted, from the fact that, in computing the days of the revolution of the earth around the sun, a fraction remains. In the course of years these fractions amount to a considerable sum--

sufficient to disarrange the seasons. For this reason intercalary periods have to be used; that is, the years are counted of unequal length, and days or longer periods are thrown in to rectify the discrepancy. In our present computation the months have no certain length, an arbitrary number of days being given to each, and the fraction remaining is nearly accounted for by adding a day to February every four years. Yet exactness requires that another be added at much longer periods.

But the computation given in the Scriptures is entirely different. Twelve months, with thirty days to the month, were counted for a year, giving a round number of three hundred and sixty days,--five less than in the present method. While we add one day to every fourth year, their deficiency being greater, they had to add longer periods, which they called a month. The twelfth month was called Adar, and the intercalated month was called Veadar--literally, And-Adar; equivalent to, Another Adar. But as we commonly call a period of three hundred and sixty-five days a year, taking no note of the intercalated days, so they called the year three hundred and sixty days, not noting the intercalated month. That thirty was the number of days counted to a month, we learn in Genesis, chapters 7 and 8.

In Gen. 7:11 it is said that the flood came upon the earth in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month. In chapter 8:4 it says the ark rested the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month. And from the seventeenth day of the second month to the seventeenth day of the seventh month is just five months. And chapter 7:24 says that the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. An hundred and fifty days divided between five months give thirty days to the month. And twelve months of thirty days to the month make a year of three hundred and sixty days. This point is clear; a year, or a literal time, contains three hundred and sixty days.

It has already been shown that a time is equal to a year, and a time and times and half a time would make twelve hundred and sixty days. Thus: one time, three hundred and sixty days; two times, seven hundred and twenty days; and half a time, one hundred and eighty days, together equal to twelve hundred and sixty.

And this computation is verified in Revelation 12. Verse 14 says that the woman fled into the wilderness, where she was nourished for a time and times and half a time from the face of the serpent. And verse 6 says she was in the wilderness a thousand two hundred and threescore days--1260. This is the period in which the little horn had power to wear out the saints of the Most High, according to Dan.7:25. 

But 1260 days make only three and a half years, while the papacy wore out the saints for many centuries. How are we to understand this? It is true that in Daniel 4 we found that seven times made just seven years, which is literal time, because that was a period relating to the life of a single man. He was driven out from his kingdom for seven years, but that did not destroy his kingdom. It stood ready for him, and he ruled in it when his reason was restored to him. But the little horn does not represent a man or a single individual; it is the symbol of a power that stood and acted through many centuries. When applied to a symbol, time is always counted a day for a year. This rule is laid down in Eze. 4:1-6. The prophet was to represent the siege of Jerusalem, by lying as many days as the city was to be besieged years. Said the Lord, "I have appointed thee each day for a year." 

And this again is shown in Daniel 9, where seventy weeks are given unto a certain event, which are known to be weeks of years--seven years to a week. This is recognized by all. And this fact, that each day is counted for a year, answers the query about the length of time the little horn had power over the saints; it was 1260 years, instead of 1260 literal days. As this time is more particularly spoken of in the book of Revelation, the evidence as to its beginning and ending will be examined in connection with an examination of some prophecies in that book. Thus briefly have the several parts of the vision been examined; the climax, "the effect of every vision," Eze. 12:23, is again presented in verse 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."

According to the current theories of men, the saints possessed the kingdom long before this little horn arose, even before the Roman kingdom was divided. But the Scriptures always speak in a different manner. This is the period of their tribulation. Here all that live godly in Christ must suffer persecution. Here death and the grave hold them in their embrace. But a change is coming, the saints will get the victory over all their foes, and possess the kingdom forever and ever. The order of events is again given in Dan. 7:21, 22:--

"I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 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."

This testimony is unmistakable and sure. This is the consummation of all prophecy. The saints are yet the Lord's waiting ones. The promises to Abraham and his seed have not yet been fulfilled. The meek have not yet inherited the earth; they have never had the privilege of delighting themselves in the abundance of peace in the land of Abraham's sojourning. The throne of David is not yet given to his seed, "whose right it is." He is yet seated upon the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens, expecting till his own throne--his throne by birth of the line of Judah--shall be given him. Rev. 3:21; Luke 1:32, 33. Still the longing ones, the believing ones, who wait for the fulfillment of the promises of the Lord, earnestly pray, "Thy kingdom come."

To be continued…

We Are Living Through Prophecy.

 We are living through prophecy and will continue to do so until all prophecy is completely and utterly fulfilled. You'd spend hours on entertainment, but not even a few on in-depth studying of God's word? You take one look at how long a study of prophecy and history can be when you want irrefutable proof that God's word holds true for the past and then for the future, and you're dismayed. We are going to live out prophecy, we have no choice, it's inevitable. Christ will come, just as all the other predictions have happened - one day Christ will return it's a fact not wishful or delusional thinking. Christ will find faith on earth when He returns, He will. However, compared to the multitudes there will be just a few He will find.  Why is that when so many millions and millions claim to belong to God? Because their hearts are not God's, not in truth. 

Is it easy to step away from the world of entertainment we are absorbed in? No. Is it easy to develop a love of studying God's word? No. Satan will do everything he can to see that it's very hard for us to choose to delve into God's word over all other things that truly are but distractions.  I'm not talking about spending time serving others, doing what our Lord called us to do- that is not a distraction, I'm talking senseless, non-edifying past times that will, if they can, draw us away from Christ, not towards Him.

Radical, extremist, delusional, bizarre, these are words associated with those who choose to seek God before all else. 

I'm guilty, so guilty, may God forgive me. May God help me, I'm weak, and HE is strong!

May we study and keep studying to know truth beyond doubt.

All by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, now and forever! Amen!!!!!!!

*

CHAPTER X. "ANOTHER LITTLE HORN."

Continuing from yesterday. 

If you read yesterday's study then you know I spoke of the puzzle pieces of prophecy and the large overview of prophecy being considered a simple100 piece puzzle easy to put together, a quick work. While a detailed view of prophecy might be considered a 100,000 piece puzzle, much more difficult and time consuming. 

We are putting together the 100,000 piece prophetic picture here and there are many details. To pick up here and now you may need to go back to the previous study for context. We are discussing the details of Rome - pagan and papal, the Legs, Feet and Toes of Daniel's prophecy of the Babylonian king's dream statue.  Daniel was given subsequent visions expounding on this prophecy-  

                                                                           

(From yesterday- 

(Daniel Chapter 7)

Verse 8. "I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots; and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things."

In all the Scriptures a horn is the symbol of power, without regard to the nature of the power. And there was an extraordinary power rising into notice just at the time when Western Rome was broken into these fragments or kingdoms. 

(Daniel Chapter 7)

Verse 24 says, "He shall be diverse from the first." And this was diverse from the others in that it arose as a religious, a professedly Christian, power. Although it arose as a little horn, so that it did not at first take its place among the kingdoms of the earth, it became very strong, for its "look was more stout than its fellows." 

And it is so well known that it passes without proof, that the Romish Church kingdom became stronger than the strongest kingdoms of the earth. The heads of this system, the popes of Rome, claimed it as their right to rule over the kings, and to absolve subjects from their allegiance

to any king who refused submission to their will.

Continued…

Under Felix II.

"From this law," says Bower, "it is manifest that great abuses must have prevailed at this time in Rome, in the management of the goods belonging to the church."

Indeed, it was well known that candidates for the chair of St. Peter had freely pledged the property of the church to procure votes in the "sacred college" where an infallible successor to St. Peter was to be chosen.

This might be called the first great humiliation that the popes of Rome were compelled to bear at the hands of an Arian king. Felix II. filled the papal chair by tolerance of Odoacer, and under restrictions placed upon him by one whom he esteemed an accursed heretic; for the law, read by order of the king, restrained the newly-elected pope, as well as his successors, from a practice which had been common with his predecessors. 

If any think that this was not a humiliation to one occupying the papal chair, let him read the life of Leo the Great, and consider what was already claimed as the right and proper authority of him who filled that position. As long as the Heruli possessed Italy, so long must the pope consider himself under the hateful supervision of those who were held to be enemies to the church and to the true faith. But to remedy this state of things was not an easy matter. 

From the time of Constantine, the emperors had assumed the oversight of the church, and the bishops, especially of Rome, the chief city of the empire, were elected and installed only by imperial consent. 

When the Barbarians ruled in Italy, their kings assumed the same right; and indeed, it became necessary for them to take the control of the important matters of the church, that the peace of the kingdom might be preserved. As Gibbon said, the peace of the city required their interposition. But it was irritating in the extreme to the ambitious popes, that they must hold their seats under the restraints imposed by a heretical king. 

True, they were not at all restrained from exercising jurisdiction in all matters spiritual; but that was not all that they demanded. But for the time being their demands were not only unheeded, but held in check. Of course it became an object to all who were of the Catholic faith, to have Italy freed from the rule of the Heruli. 

Bower says that Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, then reigning in Pannonia, had served under the emperor, but "afterwards, thinking himself ill-used by that prince, not only quitted his service, but, at the head of his Goths, made war on the empire, till he was persuaded by the emperor to turn his arms against Odoacer, who reigned in Italy." Vol. 1, p. 283, note. Zeno, who was weak and inefficient, served a twofold purpose in turning Theodoric against the Heruli. Machiavel, in his "History of Florence," thus stated the case:--

"Zeno, partly by apprehension and partly wishing to drive Odoacer from Italy, consented that he should go against him and take possession of Italy. Theodoric immediately started from his States, where he left the Gepides, people with whom he was on friendly terms, and having come into Italy, he killed Odoacer, with his son; and according to the already established custom, he took the title of king of Italy." Vol. 1, pp. 15, 16, French edition of Desborkes, Amsterdam, 1694.

  

Zeno was orthodox, that is, in full sympathy with the Roman pontiff, and by his connivance, one of the ten kingdoms was plucked up, and an important step was thus taken to free the pope from Arian domination.

 But, although it was absolutely necessary that the king of the Heruli should be removed, it was soon found that one dictator of the pope was vanquished to give place to another. Theodoric, as had Odoacer before him, in no manner opposed the free action of the Roman bishop in any matter coming legitimately under the jurisdiction of the spiritual head of the church. But he took the same oversight of the church, and compelled the orthodox to do justice to the Arians, who were being subjected to severe persecutions by Justin, the emperor of the East, who was as inefficient as Zeno before him, and more radical in his devotion to the Catholic cause. This brings us to the second humiliation of the popes by the Arians.

Gibbon attributes this persecution, not to Justin but to Justinian, who was already associated in the government. The conduct of Justinian when he became emperor fully justifies the judgment of the historians. These are his words:--

"After the death of Anastasius, the diadem had been placed on the head of a feeble old man; but the powers of government were assumed by his nephew Justinian, who already meditated the extirpation of heresy, and the conquest of Italy and Africa. A rigorous law, which was published at Constantinople, to reduce the Arians by the dread of punishment within the pale of the church, awakened the just resentment of Theodoric, who claimed for his distressed brethren of the East the same indulgence which he had so long granted to the Catholics of his dominions. At his stern command, the Roman pontiff, with four illustrious senators, embarked on an embassy, of which he must have alike dreaded the failure or the success." Decline and Fall, chap. 39, paragraph 17.

In reading the above it must be borne in mind that, though Justinian was publicly proclaimed associate emperor only four months before the death of Justin, "the powers of government were assumed" by him, as Gibbon says, before that time; he really controlled affairs under his superannuated uncle. Bower has given a minute account of the embassy of Pope John I. to the

court of Constantinople. The Arians in the East appealed to Theodoric to procure, if possible, a mitigation of the horrors into which they were consigned by the action of the emperor. Theodoric was too humane to retaliate without an effort to have the edict reversed by more gentle means. But by what means his purpose could be accomplished, it was difficult to determine. Bower says:--

"He thought of many; weighed and examined many; and at last fixed upon one, which he apprehended could not fail of the wished-for success. He knew what weight the advice and counsels of the pope had with the emperor; how much the emperor deferred to the judgment of the bishop of Rome, in all matters of religion and conscience; and therefore did not doubt that the persecution would soon be at an  end, could the pope by any means be prevailed upon to espouse the cause of the persecuted Arians." 

"The king was sensible that it was only by menaces, by force, and compulsion, that the pope could be brought to act such a part; and resolved, accordingly, to employ them at once, that no room might be left for delays and excuses. Having therefore sent for him to Ravenna, he complained to him with great warmth of the unchristian spirit and proceedings of the emperor; . . . comparing the happy situation of the heretics, meaning the Catholics in his dominion, with the unhappy condition of the Catholics in those of the emperor, he added: 'But I must let you know that I am determined not to sit as an idle spectator on such an occasion. I am, you know, and I have often declared it, an enemy to all kinds of persecution; I have suffered not only the inhabitants of Italy, but even my Goths, to embrace and profess, undisturbed, which of the two religions they thought the most pleasing to God; and, in the distribution of my favors, have hitherto made no distinction between Catholic and heretic. But if the emperor does not change his measures, I must change mine. Men of other religions the emperor may treat as he pleases, though every man has a right to serve the Creator in the manner which he thinks the most acceptable to him. But as for those who profess the same religion which I profess, I think myself bound to employ the power which it has pleased God to put into my hands for their defense and protection. If the emperor therefore does not think fit to evoke the edict, which he has lately issued against those of my persuasion, it is my firm resolution to issue the like edict against those of his; and to see it every where executed with the same rigor. Those who do not profess the faith of Nice are heretics to him; and those who do are heretics to me. Whatever can excuse and 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, 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.'" History of the Popes, under John I.  

 

Some authors say that there was a disagreement between the pope and the king in regard to the terms of the embassy, and that the king took him prisoner, and was about to convey him away. Bower says: "However that may be, certain it is that the pope undertook the embassy, not out of any kindness to the Arians, with which he has been by some unjustly reproached, but to divert the storm that threatened the Catholics in his dominions." 

And, in all the history of Rome, this is the only occasion on which her bishops ever endeavored to mitigate the cruelty of persecutions against those whom they considered heretics. And in this embassy, though he procured a reversal of the inhuman edict of the emperor, the evidence points towards a conspiracy against the king for the overthrow of the Arians, for the pope was made a prisoner on his return. Some, however, think that his imprisonment was caused by a failure to procure all that Theodoric required in the way of justice to the Arians in the East, as he did not doubt that the emperor would have granted all if they had pressed it, as they had been commanded. On this point the exact truth may never be known; but whatever the cause, the pope died in prison under the Arian rule.

The popes, from the days of Constantine, had assumed most arrogant airs; and especially from the time of Leo the Great. And John himself was not a whit behind them in his pretensions. Of his forced visit to Constantinople, Bower says:-- 

"The patriarch invited the pope to perform divine service in the great church, together with him. But he would neither accept the invitation, nor even see the patriarch, till he agreed not only to yield him the first place, but to seat him on a kind of throne above himself. It is observable that the pope alleged no other reason why he should be allowed this mark of distinction than because he was bishop of Rome, or of the first city." Ib.

We can but faintly imagine what must have been the feelings of this arrogant bishop, when sent on an embassy to intercede for those whom he declared heretics, and whom he would gladly have seen exterminated. But when he returned to his own see, in the first city, he was as helpless and dependent as the meanest citizen. And this humiliation the popes were obliged to bear as long as the Arian Ostrogoths possessed Italy.

But this was not the only humiliation which the primate, the head of the orthodox faith, had to suffer. The Vandals were in possession of Africa, and they also were Arians. Emulating the spirit of the orthodox or Catholic emperor, they were bitterly persecuting the Trinitarians in their dominions. The pope was compelled to intercede in behalf of the Arians in the East, and to put a stop to the persecutions which were raging against them; but he had no power to check the persecution which those of his own communion were suffering in Africa.

Justin died a. d. 527. Speaking of the persecution in the time of Justin, Gibbon said that Justinian "already meditated the extirpation of heresy, and the conquest of Italy and Africa." His effort to put down heresy in the East was foiled by the king of Italy; and now there remained no way to check its sway, but by the conquest of Africa and Italy. Until this was done, the pope was constantly humiliated. For this purpose the emperor sent Belisarius, an able general, against Africa, in 534. Of the capture of Carthage, the Vandal capital, Gibbon says:-- 

"The defeat of the Vandals, and the freedom of Africa, were announced to the city on the eve of St. Cyprian, when the churches were already adorned and illuminated for the festival of the martyr, whom three centuries of superstition had almost raised to a local deity. 

The Arians, conscious that their reign had expired, resigned the temple to the Catholics, who rescued their saint from profane hands, performed the holy rites, and loudly proclaimed the creed of Athanasius and Justinian. One awful hour reversed the fortunes of the contending parties." Chap. xli, paragraph 9.  The king of the Vandals collected his scattered and feeble forces, and engaged in the final struggle not far from Carthage. Both armies were small, and Gibbon thus speaks of the results of this battle:--

"Yet no more than fifty Romans, and eight hundred Vandals, were found on the field of battle; so inconsiderable was the carnage of a day, which extinguished a nation, and transferred the empire of Africa." Id., paragraph 10

Thus was the second of the ten kingdoms removed to serve the interests of the papacy. 

To be continued…  (tomorrow we'll continue with the third horn that was plucked up by Papal Rome.) 

Prophecy's Jigsaw Puzzle Almost Complete.

 Is history boring? It can be. There is so much of it to delve into. When we are looking for fulfilled prophecy the puzzle could be considered one of those huge jigsaw puzzles. Read this little fact-

"They assembled a 551,232-piece puzzle on September 24, 2011, scoring the record for the most pieces in a finished jigsaw puzzle.Apr 24, 2020"

 Did you note that number?! 551,232 pieces! Imagine putting that jigsaw puzzle together! When it comes to prophecy's puzzle pieces there can be just as many pieces, the possibility exists there are even many more than that. 

Our God gave us the sure word of prophecy- 

2Pe 1:19  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 

2Pe 1:20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 

2Pe 1:21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 

A sure word of prophecy.  And the proof that all of mankind today has is so much history to study against prophecy. Piece after piece of prophecy met in our history. Yet so few care at all. I wonder if we were to take some sort of poll how many people could answer, "Yes." When questioned whether or not they know what all of the Statue in Nebuchadnezzar's prophetic dream means. What percentage would even know there was a dream statue? Seriously, where is the desperation for knowledge of Biblical prophecy and its meaning? 

Proof. Do you want proof of the authenticity of God's word? Study prophecy.

I've heard so many twisted beliefs about the Bible, so many. From its being a fable constructed to control people to it being a man-made book that simple men put together- leaving out a lot of other Biblical books, and putting in only what suited them. What's true is, there was a council that did construct what we know today as the New Testament. They did leave out books that are even mentioned in the books they left in. What is also true is, God GUIDED man through the HOLY SPIRIT to put together the word of God that we have today. All we need to know the Gospel of Salvation and the truth of God is in the Bible in what I personally perceive to be the closest translated into English- the KJV.  There are many versions and even the KJV has its flaws in translation. To study it very deeply is to be a scholar of Hebrew and Greek. God has given us all we need to know to be His if we choose to know Him.

I am very far from being a Biblical scholar, and yet, by the grace of God I have been allowed to see the truth of His word. I've read the prophecies, I've read where they've come to pass, and NOTHING can stop the rest of the prophecy from coming to pass, nothing!  This huge jigsaw puzzle has many, many pieces set in their place with a finite number of pieces left until that glorious day of our Savior's return and the ushering in of life as it was meant to be, and will be. 

You can take the 100 piece prophecy puzzle and get a grand overview. You can take the 1000 piece puzzle and get much more detail You can even opt to piece together the 5000 piece puzzle and have an extraordinary detail of prophecy. Or go for the 1,000,000 pieces and get all the facts you can.  These in-depth Bible studies that span weeks and months to complete are the larger puzzle with many, many pieces, many facts and we can choose to study them or ignore them, it's a choice that we alone can make. 

God help us to KNOW HIM FULLY, to KNOW HIM COMPLETELY, to LOVE HIM, to LET HIM LOVE US. May we forever be HIS! All through Jesus Christ our LORD AND SAVIOR, now and forever! Amen!!!!!!!

*******

CHAPTER X. "ANOTHER LITTLE HORN."

In the year 540 b. c., just sixty-three years after the dream of Nebuchadnezzar was given and interpreted, Daniel had a vision, which is recorded in the seventh chapter of his prophecy. In this vision he saw the four winds of Heaven striving upon the great sea, and four great beasts came up from the sea. In verses 17, 18, an explanation of the beasts is given as follows:--

"These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever."

These words show that this vision embraces the same great facts that are presented in the dream of the king, namely, four great kingdoms to be followed by a kingdom that the saints shall possess forever. Then the object of this vision is the same as that of the dream, to acquaint us with the facts of history preceding, and leading to, the setting up of the kingdom of God. 

Verse 4. "The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings; I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it."

The lion is called the king of beasts, and it bears about the same relation to the other beasts that gold bears to the other metals of the image of chapter 2. "Eagle's wings" adds something to the same quality, denoting the rapidity with which the empire rose to its wonderful greatness in the seventh century before Christ. But its wings were plucked, and the lion's heart was taken away. We must bear in mind that this beast, as the head of gold of the image, represented the empire of Babylon, and not any one emperor or king. The glory of  the kingdom declined from the days of Nebuchadnezzar--so transitory is the glory of this world. Under the reign of Belshazzar there was left the qualities of neither the lion nor the eagle.

Verse 5. "And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it; and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh." 

This is a strikingly correct representation of the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians, the same as the breast and arms of the image. In chapter 8, the kings of Media and Persia are represented by a ram (compare Dan. 8:3, 4, 20), having two horns, and one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. The Medes were the leading power in the war against Babylon; for Cyrus, the real leader of the armies, gave himself entirely to the service of his uncle, "Darius the Median," who took the kingdom when the city of Babylon was overthrown. Of Darius but little need be said, except that he was ruler over a mighty empire that was presented to him by his nephew, for he gave no evidence of capability of subduing such an empire to himself. "The higher came up last." The Persian  branch of the empire flourished under Cyrus, who was really one of the greatest generals that profane history presents to us; not merely because he could lead great armies, and subdue kingdoms, but he was lenient to his captives, considerate of the comfort and welfare of his soldiers and confederates, and just towards all. He went forth to war, not from a love of conquest, or because of indifference for human life, but in defense of the rights of those who were assailed. Added to all this, in his personal habits he was a model of temperance and benevolence. How well the bear represented the united houses of the Medes and Persians--it raised up itself on one side.

In describing the symbol of this kingdom in Daniel 8, the prophet said he saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward. These are the directions in which the Medes and Persians pursued their conquests; and the three ribs in the mouth of the bear doubtless denote the same thing.

Verse 6. "After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads and dominion was given to it."

The leopard represents the third great kingdom, the same as the body of brass of the image, or the rough goat in chapter 8,--the kingdom of Grecia. There is a twofold symbol to denote the speed with which Alexander conquered the world, namely, the body of a leopard, with four wings of a fowl. The love of conquest was his ruling passion. Merely to gratify a senseless ambition, he made war without cause or provocation, upon those who would gladly have remained in peace with him. Seneca said: "Alexander, who is justly entitled the plunderer of nations, made his glory consist in carrying desolation into all places, and in rendering himself the terror of mankind." See Rollin, Book 15, sec. 18. It seems a reflection on humanity to give such a man the title of "the Great." To fully appreciate the description given in Daniel 7:7, it is necessary to notice further the symbol of Grecia in Dan 8:5-9. The goat had a notable horn between his eyes, which, the angel said, was the first king, that is, Alexander. "The he goat waxed very great; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven."

The kingdom of Alexander had suffered no decline when he died. He was in the full tide of, victory, not having had time to prepare for himself a capital, when he fell, slain not in war, but by his depraved and ungovernable appetite,--broken in his strength. And for it came up four notable horns toward the four winds of heaven. The angel said, "Four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but  in his power." Dan. 8:22. 

Alexander died b. c. 323. His death was sudden and unexpected, he being in the prime of life; and no provision had been made for a successor. There were many aspirants for power, among the chief of whom was Antigonus. Lyman, in his Historical Chart, has given a view of the kingdom after the death of Alexander, in a few forcible words:--

"The empire was divided into thirty-three governments, distributed among as many general officers. Hence arose a series of bloody, desolating wars, and a period of confusion, anarchy, and crime ensued, that is almost without a parallel in the history of the world. After the battle of Ipsus, 301 b. c., in which Antigonus was defeated, the empire was divided into four kingdoms--Thrace and Bythinia under Lysimachus; Syria and the East under Seleucus; Egypt under Ptolemy Soter; and Macedonia under Cassander." 

Two points are worthy of remark in this symbol and its fulfillment: (1) The prophecy takes no note whatever of this period of anarchy and confusion. It was a period of internal dissensions, in which there was neither time nor opportunity to establish kingdoms on anything like a permanent footing. (2) The four kingdoms which arose toward the four winds of heaven are considered but parts of the same Grecian kingdom. They are no doubt regarded a continuation of the same dominion because the four kings named entered into agreement to divide the kingdom among themselves; they reigned by mutual consent, and not in opposition to one another. This is marked in Dan. 7:6, by the simple expression, "The beast had also four heads."

Verse 7. "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns."

The likeness of the fourth kingdom, represented by the legs of the image in chapter 2, is readily seen in this beast. The fourth kingdom of iron was to be stronger than those preceding it; so this beast was strong exceedingly, and it had great iron teeth. "As iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things, and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise," was said of the fourth kingdom, represented by the legs of the image; and so of this beast: "It devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it." 

And it had ten horns, which are said in verse 24 to be ten kings that shall arise. These ten kings were represented by the feet and toes of the image,--the ten kingdoms rising out of the Roman empire when it was broken up by its invaders from the north and northeast. Thus far the facts presented in the vision of these four beasts are identical with those of the image in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar.

Chapter 2:43 says of these ten kingdoms, "They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another." This shows that these kingdoms were not smitten by the stone as soon as they arose; there must be a time for the mingling--for efforts at consolidation, for changes to take place-- before the kingdom and dominion shall be given to the saints of the Most High.

This statement in chapter 2:43, in regard to their mingling, and yet not cleaving to one another, contains but a faint hint of all the changes which should take place before the closing scenes. The same idea is presented in verse 34. 

After the image was presented complete, Daniel said: "Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out," etc.; as if he continued to observe the image until the stone appeared. And we shall see that each succeeding vision, whether of Daniel or John, contains some additional events to precede the setting up of the kingdom of God, and the destruction of all the nations and kingdoms of this world. The additional facts in chapter 7 are principally brought to view in-- 

Verse 8. "I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots; and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things."

In all the Scriptures a horn is the symbol of power, without regard to the nature of the power. And there was an extraordinary power rising into notice just at the time when Western Rome was broken into these fragments or kingdoms. 

Verse 24 says, "He shall be diverse from the first." And this was diverse from the others in that it arose as a religious, a professedly Christian, power. Although it arose as a little horn, so that it did not at first take its place among the kingdoms of the earth, it became very strong, for its "look was more stout than its fellows." 

And it is so well known that it passes without proof, that the Romish Church kingdom became stronger than the strongest kingdoms of the earth. The heads of this system, the popes of Rome, claimed it as their right to rule over the kings, and to absolve subjects from their allegiance

to any king who refused submission to their will. On this point Professor Gaussen, of Geneva, gave the following pointed and truthful testimony:--

"Daniel tells us (verse 20) that though this horn was the least, his 'look was more stout than his fellows.' The pomps of Charlemagne, Charles V., Louis XIV., and Bonaparte were very great; but were they comparable to that of the Roman pontiff? The greatest kings must hold his stirrup, serve him at table (what do I say?) must prostrate themselves before him, and kiss his feet; and even put their necks under his proud foot. Go yet this year to view him in the Vatican, as I myself have done. You will see hanging in the royal hall, where all the ambassadors of Europe pass, a picture representing the great emperor, Henry IV., uncovered before Gregory VII. You will see in another picture the heroic and powerful emperor Frederick Barbarossa upon his knees and elbows, before Pope Alexander III., in the public square of Venice; the foot of the pope rests on his shoulder; his scepter cast to the ground; and under the picture, these words: 'Frederick, a suppliant, adores, promising faith and obedience.' You must see with your own eyes this priest-king in his palaces and temples, to form an idea of his pomps, and to understand the full meaning of these words of Daniel: 'His look was more stout than his fellows.' What Eastern king was ever borne like him upon men's shoulders, decked with the plumes of the peacock? Incense is burnt before him as before an idol; they kneel on both knees before him; they kiss the soles of his feet; they worship him." Lecture in Geneva College, 1843. 

Such was his rise, and such is his appearance. "And before whom three [kings] fell." All who are acquainted with the history, religious and secular, of the fourth and fifth centuries, are aware that the Arian controversy was the leading cause of dispute, not only in the churches and councils, but among kings. The Gothic kings were Arians; and in those days the people professed the faith of their kings. But the Church of Rome was the representative of the Trinitarian faith. This faith was indorsed by the Council of Nice, where the primacy was  conferred upon the bishop of Rome. This forever bound the bishop of that see to that faith. The primacy and the doctrine of the Trinity were inseparable. That church was the chief support of what was then called the orthodox faith, while the Goths were held to be heretics. 

The Heruli, under Odoacer, who were also Arians, took possession of Italy. Gibbon says:--

"Odoacer was the first Barbarian who reigned in Italy, over a people who had once asserted their just superiority above the rest of mankind. . . 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 attest the toleration which they enjoyed." Decline and Fall, chap. 36, paragraphs 32, 33. In this respect the conduct of the Barbarian heretics was in strong contrast with that of the orthodox or Catholics, for these never failed to persecute the Arians when they had the power. And the spirit of persecution was so strongly entrenched in them that when they could not persecute those whom they consigned to perdition as heretics, they fell to quarreling among themselves. In them worldly ambition seemed to have entirely supplanted the spirit of Christianity. Of the time of Odoacer, Gibbon, in the same place, further says: 

"The peace of the city required the interposition of his prefect Basilius in the choice of a Roman pontiff." That is to say, that the election of a pope was accompanied with such party strifes that the authority of the Barbarian heretic was necessary to preserve the peace of the city, and to prevent bloodshed; for such an election was sometimes the occasion of fatal quarrels. It was also customary to purchase votes in the selection of the pope, and the Arian king was obliged to use his authority to put an end to this scandal. 

Upon the death of Pope Simplicius, in 483, the people and clergy assembled for the election of a new bishop for Rome. Then occurred that interference of Odoacer of which Gibbon spoke, as quoted above. Bower's History of the Popes says:--

"But while they were assembled for that purpose, in the Church of St. Peter, Basilius the prefectus pretoria, and lieutenant of King Odoacer, entered the assembly; and, addressing the electors, that is, the people, the senate, and the clergy, expressed great surprise at their taking upon them to appoint a successor to the deceased bishop, without him; adding, that it belonged to the civil magistrate to prevent the disturbances that might arise on such occasions, lest from the church they should pass to the State. . . . He then declared all they had done without him to be null; and ordered the election to be begun anew, though it was already near concluded. But, in the first place, he caused a law to be read in the name of Odoacer, forbidding the bishop, who should now be chosen, as well as his successors, to alienate any inheritance, possessions, or sacred utensils, that now belonged, or should for the future belong, to the church; declaring all such bargains void; anathematizing both the seller and the buyer; and obliging the latter, and his heirs, to restore to the church all lands and  tenements thus purchased, how long soever they may have possessed them." 

To be continued… (There are many proofs to enable a sure word of prophecy to be comprehended.)