|
Isaac Newton | Protestant History | 3 Interpretations | Daniel | Revelation | Armageddon | Audio Links | Site Index |
| Home ¬ Previous Page ¬ The Red Republic, Chapter 3 | ||||||||
WE come now to inquire, How long shall the,testimony of the witnesses continue, and when shall their prophesying in sackcloth come to an end? The 3d verse tells us, "they shall prophesy a thausand two hundred and three score days clothed in sackcloth." Now the first thing here, to be determined, is what we are to understand by the 1260 days; and the next, when we are to begin to count; for if we can fix when the prophesying in sackcloth began, that will bring us to the time when it must come to an end. As to the meaning of the 1260 days, there is no difficulty at all. All commentators of any note are agreed, that they are just 1260 years; and for this opinion, there is ample Scriptural warrant. The reader, on consulting Numbers 14:34, and Ezekiel 4:6, will find that the Spirit of God has expressly sanctioned this mode of interpretation. "I have appointed thee," saith the Lord, "each day for a year." The seventy weeks of Daniel each beyond all question computed in this way.
A week in that instance, does not mean a literal week of seven days, but seven years; and consequently the seventy weeks are 490 years. We have the most solid data then for assuming that 1260 years is the period, during which the witnesses are to prophesy in sackcloth. The second question then comes: "When did that period commence,--from what date are we to begin to count?" Now that period evidently began at the same time that the holy city was given to be trodden under foot of the Gentiles; for the forty and two months of the apostacy are just the same as the 1260 days of the testifying. The reason that time, in the one case, is expressed by months, and in the other by days, does not seem to refer to any difference in the mode of computation; but to the very different condition in a spiritual point of view of the two parties concerned. The witnesses who worshipship in the temple, are "all the children of the light, and the children of the day." The multitudes, who worship in the outward court of the Gentiles, are the children of "the night and of darkness." Therefore is the time expressed in the one case, by the apparent Motions of the sun that rules the day, and in the other, by the revolutions of the moon that presides over the night. The period in both cases is the same; for the apostacy of the one party is the reason of the testifying of the other. Is there any event in history, then, that fixes the time when the holy city was given to the Gentiles? There is, and it stands out so conspicuously from all other events, that it seems impossible to mistake it. What is that event? It is the grant of supreme authority to the Pope as Universal Bishop or head over the whole Church of Christ. In Daniel; we read of a little horn that came up on the head of the Roman beast, that "had eyes like the eyes of man, a mouth that spake great things, and whose look was more stout than his fellows." Tha little horn beyond all controversy is the Pope; and into his hands, as the angel told Daniel, the saints were to be given for a time and times and the dividing of time, in other words, for three years and a half, or 1260 days, the very period during which the holy city was to be trodden under foot of the Gentiles. Now just as the angel foretold, so it came to pass. The saints "were given" into the hands of Boniface III, at the beginning of the seventh century, A.D. 606 by the "Roman Emperor" Phocas. Boniface flattered the unprincipled Phocas, who had murdered his master Mauritius, and usurped his throne; and in requital for his flatteries, Phocas conferred upon him, by his imperial decree, the dignity of Universal Bishop, and head of the whole Church of God. Then, for the first time, were the saints given into the bands of the little horn; then did the holy city begin visibly and manifestly to be trodden under foot of the Gentiles. Some have fixed on an earlier period, as the time when the Pope was constituted head of the Church. Dr Keith, for instance, is of opinion, that that took place in 533, and appeals to an epistle of the Emeror Justinian in proof of the fact, in which he styles him "head of all the holy churches."
With all deference to one so distinguished by his valuable labours on prophecy, we decidedly demur to this opinion. The very passage in question is pronounced by Comber in his "Forgeries of the Councils," p. 251, to be spurious. Dr Keith himself seems to have had some misgiving on the subject, and finds it necessary to appeal to the edicts of the Novellae of Justinian, as "unanswerable proofs" of its authenticity. But the support which the Novellae give to the. strong language in which the Pope's authority is here described, is very much like that given by the famous postscript of Charles I. to the pleadings of his letter for the acquittal of his minister Strafford. After long and elaborate arguments in his bebalf, the letter thus concluded:--"P. S. If the unfortunate gentleman must die, it were charity to reprieve him till Saturday." The postscript neutralized the whole effect of the previous pleading. So, to out mind the last of the "unanswerable proofs" of the excellent Doctor upsets his whole theory. What is that proof? It is contained in the following The 131st edict, on the ecclesiastical titles and privileges, chap. ii. states, " We therefore decree, that the most holy Pope of the elder Rome, is the first of all the priesthood, and that the most blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, the new Rome, shall hold the second rank, after the hoJy apostolic chair of the elder Rome." Does this imply the Pope's headship, or universal episcopate over all churches? It refers not to authority, not to jurisdiction, but simply to status, to precedency in point of dignity, as holding the "first rank" among the bishops of the church. The epistle of Justinian then, even if he had had that power over the western empire, which was necessary to give him any plea for constituting the Pope "Head of all the churches" a power, which, at that time, he assuredly had not, must be classed with "the Donation of Constantine." Nothing is more easy than to show that up to the time of Boniface, the Pope had never been constituted the head of the church. The language of Gregory the Great, Boniface's immediate predecessor, in his famous controversy with John of Constantinople, renders this a matter of absolute demonstration. On what ground did Gregory resist the assumption of the title of Universal Bishop, by his brother of the East? Was it because it was an invasion of his own prerogatives, the usurpation of a title which belonged exclusively to himself? No. He resisted it on the express ground, that for any one to lay claim to, the authority implied in it, was an act of impiety. "Whosoever," said he, "either calleth himself universal priest, or desireth so to be called, is the forerunner of Antichrist." The same and even stronger language he reiterates again and again, in the various letters that he addressed to the Emperor, the Empress, and even the Byzantine bishop himself, during the five years' controversy on the subject. He denounces the title as a "profane title" a "perverse name, which whoso coveted, showed that he was moved by the sprit of him, who fell, by proudly aspiring to an equality with God."1 Is it conceivable, that Gregory could have used such language, if all his predecessors for the last sixty or seventy years, ever since the time of Justitian, had exercised the authority implied in the title of "Head of all the holy churches" Nay, he positively asserts that the title in question, was a "new," as well as a "profane and perverse name." 2He declares, that "none of his predecessors had ever consented to use this ungodly name," 3and that, when the name "had been offered them in the council of Chalcedon, it had been peremptorily refused." There is not an allusion in all the lengthened correspondence, so., far as I can find, of such an authority being conferred by- Sustinian. It fs plain, then, that when Phocas gave Boniface the title of Universal Bishop, he did not "confirm by his decree, what Justinian had done before him". 4 but that he bestowed a name and a power which were altogether new. Phocas was, what Justinian in 533 was not, the imperial head of the Western as well as Eastern empire; and by the civil power which he exercised over that empire; he constituted the Pope its spiritual head, he made him universal bishop, and so far as any earthly power could do so, "gave the saints into his hands." From any period earlier than this, then, the 1260 days cannot be counted.
Neither can we commence much later. Some have insisted that the Pope cannot be regarded as Antichrist, until he was invested with civil power as a temporal prince, and that consequently the 1260 days could not begin to run till A.D. 754, when he became possessed, of those principalities that form the states of the church. But this proceeds upon an entire misconception of what it is that constitutes the essentially Antichristian character of the Papacy. That has no necessary connection with the temporal sovereignty of the Pope. The Pope might be divested of every shred of his temporal sovereignty tomorrow, and yet remain as much Antichrist as ever. That which constitutes him in true and proper sense, the Antichrist, is his seating himself in the mediatorial throne, usurping the inalienable prerogative of Christ, and as universal bishop lording it over the church of God. This Gregory knew well, when he condemned the man who assumed the title, as guilty of proudly aspiring to "an equality with God." The antichristian character of the Pope, then, was clearly developed, when he received and assumed the headship of the church. And that we are not mistaken in the date on which we have fixed, is further manifest from the fact, that, at that very time, the apostacy of Christendom into all the abominations of heathenism, was plainly consummated. That it was now, that "the holy city was trodden under foot of the Gentiles," we know, on the authority of two most unexceptionable witnesses an infidel, and a Roman Catholic historian. The language of Gibbon on this subject, is very remarkable "The Christians of the seventh century," says he, "had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of Paganism."5 What words could form a more striking commentary on the prophetic declaration of the angel? Gibbon does not indeed fix on any specific date in the seventh century, when this "relapsing" into the semblance of "Paganism" had taken place. But a statement of Paul the deacon supplies the want, and brings us to the very time when' the headship of the church was given to the Pope. "The same" Phocas; he tells us, who made Boniface III. universal bishop, gave the Pantheon at Rome "to another Boniface," that is, Boniface IV.6 The Pantheon was originally dedicated by Agrippa, to Jupiter, and all the gods. Boniface; as head of the church, dedicated it anew to the Virgin Mary, and all the saints. With this alteration, from that time forward, it served as exactly for all the purposes of Popish, as it had done for the Pagan idolatry, for which it was built. The idols in that Pagan temple were called by Christian names; but Pope Boniface, and his subjects, who worshipped them, were manifestly as truly Pagans as Agrippa who had founded it. This grant of the Pantheon was made A.D. 608. Now, could anything be more significant, could any thing more decisively show that the apostasy was complete-that the gift of the saints, "into the hands of the little horn," was identical with "the giving of the holy city to the Gentiles" From A.D. 606 then, or 608, must we begin to count; and of course, if the prophesying in sackloth began then, it must come to an end A.D. 1866-68, that is, taking it for granted, that the 1260 years are to be counted as Julian years. Fleming in his "Rise and Fall of Papacy," lays it down as a principle of his theory, that these years must be counted as Jewish years. As, there is a difference of more than five days between the Jewish and the Julian year, 1260 Jewish years are equal to only 1242 Julian ones. Dating the commencement of these from 606, they would of course run out exactly in this year 1848; and many, in consequence, have been on the tiptoe of expectation; as if the overthrow of Antichrist might immediately be looked for. But this is founded altogether in misapprehension. The chronological prophecies of this book, which are already fulfilled, such as those relating to the Arabian locusts, and the four angels bound in the river Euphrates, have fallen out according to the Julian and not the Jewish period. The 1260 days, therefore, must be computed in the same way. As most of the great prophecies of Scripture have a double fulfillment, so God has seen fit that in this year, there shall be something like a foreshadowing of the grand catastrophe: It is not more, ho than a mere foreshadowing. Not till 1866 can the 1260 clays expire. Then, but not before, shall the dominion of Antichrist come to an end; then shall the mystery of iniquity be finished, then shall Babylon fall to rise no more.See Note C
It is by no gradual decay, by no lingering consumption, that she is destined to come to an end. When judgment overtakes her, nothing to human appearance is less likely, nothing could be more unforeseen. Read the picture of her overthrow (Rev. 18.) and what do you see? She is in the very height of her pomp and splendour. All nations are made drunk with the wine of her fornication; all the powers of the earth are in willing subjection to her; all rejoice to do her homage, and to minister to her luxury and gratification. Whatever she had lost, has been restored; whatever grief had clouded her brow, has been effectually dispelled. The kingdoms, that had revolted from her at the Reformation, have returned to her bosom; the northern schism is healed; she has no "widowhood" now to trouble her; no separation from those who had, committed fornication with her, any longer to deplore. She sways a sceptre of undisputed supremacy. All that heart could wish is hers. From her throne on the seven hills, she- looks abroad with delight on her wide dominions. She glorifies herself, she lives deliciously, she says in the pride of her heart, "I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow." While thus secure, while thus rejoicing, while saying to her soul, "To-morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant," her doom arrives, the kingdom departs from her. Suddenly, with violence, like a great mill-stone,cast into the sea, Babylon falls, her lovers weep and wail for her unexpected desolation, and heaven and the holy apostles and prophets rejoice in her overthrow. As it was in the day when Sodom was destroyed, so shall it be in the day of Babylon's doom: "The sun was risen upon the earth, when Lot entered into Zoar;" his beams poured down as brightly as ever, and nothing gave token of approaching disaster, when suddenly the brimstone shower descended, and the cities of the plain were one wide extent of burning ruin. And just so, when the spiritual Sodom, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, is least expecting it, "in one hour shall her judgment come."
"Behold I come as a thief," is the warning voice of Christ, just before the outpouring of the seventh and last vial, that makes her desolate. She hears not the warning, she heeds it not. Therefore, when most puffed up, and most secure, "her plagues come in one day, death and mourning and famine, and she shall be utterly burned with fire; for strong is the Lord God, who judgeth her."
Now, if this be the inspired description of Antichrist's doom, how obviously unfounded, altogether irrespective of dates, are the hopes of those, who expect that the present shakings among the nations, will gradually undermine the Papacy, and speedily issue in its ruin. So far from Pius IX reposing in undisturbed tranquillity, and rejoicing in imaginary security, never Pontiff has been filled with such constant anxieties as he. Ever since he was elevated to the papal throne, he has had one difficulty after another to grapple with. If, one day, all Italy has been ready to worship him for his pretended reforms, the very next, the citizens of Rome have beheld him with averted looks, because of his reluctance to give them all they asked; and the disappointed Pontiff has returned gloomy and desponding to his palace. During the two years and a half that have elapsed since his reign commenced, vivas and vituperations have followed one another in rapid alternation. His attitude is not what the prophecy requires,--an attitude of triumph and proud security, but of conflict and sore travail. When therefore, we learn from Italian journals that "Il Papa piange" "The Pope weeps," when we find him attempting to escape from his long-continued and thickening anxieties, by flight from his capital; when even we hear of residents within the Italian states, insulting over him in his disappointments, and addressing him in such language as this, "Weep, 0 Pontiff, thou sceptred and living Antichrist! weep, thou favoured of Loyola! weep burning tears over the tomb thou hast dug for thyself!" however Unprecedented.. such language from such a quarter may be, we draw from it a very different conclusion from that drawn by many, who fondly imagine it the prelude of his fall. We see in it, on the contrary, and in its attendant circumstances, the most complete demonstration that the doom of Babylon is not yet. The weeping and fugitive Pontiff, filled with anxieties for the partial failure of his schemes, and yet all the while sowing in tears, and extending his spiritual power to the ends of the earth, cannot be the antitype of the woman, who, in the very "hour" before her judgment comes, says in her heart, "I sit a queen, and shall see no sorrow." The Papacy is at present only in a transition state. The shaking of nations; and the tumbling and tottering of thrones which we have seen, are not the beginning of the end, not the pouring out of the last vial; but only the re-adjust went of the Roman world, the shifting of the scenes, and the clearing of the stage, for the development of the Antichristian power in a new phase, and the performance of the last act in the grand drama before its fall.
1 See "Light of Prophecy" pp. 77, 78, and 200,.201
2Greg. Opera, Lib. iv. . Epist. 32. Basil 1550.
3Ibid. Lib. iv. Epist. 36
4These fire not the words of Dr Keith, but of the "Seventh Vial," which adopts his view. For further information on this subject, see the very able work of Rev. Mr Whyte on Daniel.
5Gibbon Vol. ix. P. 261.
6Pauli Diac, Lib. xviii.