Earlier text: General ArticlesBISHOP NEWTON, in his “Dissertations on the Prophecies,” pp. 209, 210, has given us three distinct lists besides his own, viz., one by Mede, one by Sir Isaac Newton, one by Bishop Chandler indorsed by Bishop Lloyd. Mede’s list is as follows:— “Mr. Mede, whom a certain writer esteemed as a man divinely inspired for the interpretation of the prophecies, reckons up the ten kingdoms thus in the year A. D. 456, the year after Rome was sacked by Genseric, king of the Vandals: (1) The Britons; (2) the Saxons in Britain; (3) the Franks; (4) the Burgundians in France; (5) the Visigoths in the south of France and part of Spain; (6) the Sueves and Alans in Galicia and Portugal; (7) the Vandals in Africa; (8) the Alemanes in Germany; (9) the Ostrogoths, whom the Longobards succeeded, in Pannonia, and afterwards in Italy; (10) the Greeks in the residue of the empire.” There are two points in this list that are manifestly wrong: First, in naming the Britons. These could perhaps properly be named in A. D. 456, the date at which Mr. Mede makes his list, because then the Saxons had only been seven years on British soil. But in the end the Saxons utterly swept away not only the power of the Britons but the Britons themselves. Of the conquest of Britain, Green says:— “With the victory of Deorham [A. D. 577] the conquest of the bulk of Britain was complete. Britain had in the main become England. And within this new England a Teutonic society was settled on the wreck of Rome. So far as the conquest had yet gone it was complete. Not a Briton remained as subject or slave on English ground. It is this that distinguishes the conquest of Britain from that of the other provinces of Rome. The conquest of Gaul by the Franks, or that of Italy by the Lombards, proved little more than a forcible settlement of the one or the other among tributary subjects who were destined in the long course of ages to absorb their conquerors. But the English conquest of Britain up to the point which we have reached was a sheer dispossession of the people whom the English conquered. So far as the English sword in these earlier days had reached, Britain had become England, a land, that is, not of Britons but of Englishmen. Even if a few of the vanquished people lingered as slaves round the homesteads of their English conquerors, or a few of their household words mingled with the English tongue, doubtful exceptions such as these leave the main facts untouched. The key-note of the conquest was firmly struck. When the English invasion was stayed for awhile by the civil wars of the invaders, the Briton had disappeared from the greater part of the land which had been his own; and the tongue, the religion, the laws of his English conquerors reigned without a break from Essex to Staffordshire, and the British Channel to the Firth of Forth.”—History of the English People, chap. 2, par. 1-5.
“Their conquest was not the settlement of armed conquerors amidst a subject people, but the gradual expulsion—it might almost seem the total extirpation—of the British and the Roman British inhabitants. Christianity receded with the conquered Britons into the mountains of Wales, or towards the borders of Scotland, or took refuge among the peaceful and flourishing monasteries of Ireland. On the one hand, the ejection, more or less complete, of the native race, shows that the contest was fierce and long; the reoccupation of the island by paganism is a strong confirmation of the complete expulsion of the Britons.”—Milman’s Latin Christianity, Book IV., chap. 3, par. 3.
It is evident, therefore, that for this reason, if for no other, the Britons cannot be counted as one of the ten kingdoms. But there is another important consideration that forbids it. The Britons were themselves a part of the body of the Roman Empire, which was conquered and broken up by the new peoples who came in. And if in Britain it be proper to count as a kingdom the conquered equally with the conquerors, then we may do so also in all the other parts of the empire, and, as Mr. Green shows, with more propriety. If we count the Britons and the Saxons in Britain, we may with equal propriety count the Gauls and the Franks in France, the Spanish and the Suevi in Spain, the Africans and the Vandals in Africa, and so on through the list, which would give us twenty kingdoms instead of ten! Plainly, Mr. Mede’s insertion of the Britons is erroneous. This latter consideration too, demonstrates the impropriety of counting any part of the old empire of Rome, as one among the ten which were to arise. The prophetic word is marking the rise and fall of distinct nations; and when Rome has risen, run her course, and is brought to ruin by the rise of ten other kingdoms, it were unreasonable to count a part of that which is fallen, as one of those which were to arise. No, Rome had run her course, as had the empires before her, and in the ten kingdoms God raised up new peoples by whom he would fulfill his purposes. Secondly, Mr. Mede’s list is defective in another place. He counts as his tenth kingdom, “The Greeks in the residue of the empire.” We have shown, and this agrees with Bishop Newton exactly, that the ten kingdoms must arise within the bounds of the Western Empire. But Mr. Mede fills the Western Empire with nine nations and lumps up all the rest of the empire in one. But in A. D. 456 there were divisions in the Eastern, or Greek, Empire as well as in the Western, and we cannot see by what right they can be summed up in one, any more than could those in the Western Empire, for the empire at that time still existed in the West as well as it did in the East. In short, two things are certain, either of which excludes Mr. Mede’s tenth kingdom; (a) we cannot rightly go outside of the limits of the Western Empire to count the ten kingdoms; and (b) if we do go beyond those limits, we cannot rightly lump together as one kingdom all that were in the bounds of the Eastern Empire, and that would give again considerably more than ten. The others that are named in this list are in the main correct; one minor point we would mention, i. e., “the Alemanes in Germany.” Simply to prevent misapprehension, we would remark that if Mr. Mede meant, as he probably did, the Alemanni in what is now Germany, he is correct, for the Alemanni were the root of the present nation of Germany. That part of the present Germany which lies south of the river Main and the Moselle, including about half of Bavaria, is the country taken from the Roman Empire by the Alemanni. Of the Roman Empire it formed the province of Rhatia, and a part of Gaul. Of what was then Germany, none lay south of the Main or of the Danube. The Emperor William of Germany is directly descended from a prince of the Alemanni. The next is Sir Isaac Newton’s list, thus:— “(1) The kingdom of the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa; (2) the kingdom of the Suevans in Spain; (3) the kingdom of the Visigoths; (4) the kingdom of the Alans in Gallia; (5) the kingdom of the Burgundians; (6) the kingdom of the Franks; (7) the kingdom of the Britons; (8) the kingdom of the Huns; (9) the kingdom of the Lombards; (10) the kingdom of Ravenna.” We know not at what date Sir Isaac found these, only that, as he names “the kingdom [exarchate] of Ravenna,” it must have been somewhere between A. D. 554 and 752, for that is the time of the existence of the exarchate of Ravenna. But that comes into history too late to be counted as one of the ten. They must all be seen before A. D. 493. He too names the Britons, but it is most likely that he uses that name for that of the Saxons, as England is even now called Britain, and the English sometimes Britons. His mention of the “Alans in Gallia [Gaul]” as one of the ten kingdoms is, we think, rather more than they deserve, and more than their history will justify. It is true that of the Alani that crossed the Rhine in A. D. 406, with the Burgundians, the Suevi, and the Vandals, a portion settled near Valence and Orleans in Gaul, while the body of the nation went on into Spain; but soon after the battle of Châlons, “their separate national existence in Gaul was merged in that of the Visigoths” (Encyc. Brit., art. “Alani”); and when, in A. D. 508, the Visigoths were, by the Franks, driven from their Gallic possessions into Spain (Gibbon, chap. 38, par. 13, 29), this body of the Alani were lost to history, if not to the world. The Huns likewise cannot properly be numbered as one of the ten kingdoms, but as they are named in other lists we shall defer the notice of them till later. Bishop Newton makes up his list in the “eighth century,” which is more than two hundred years too late, and that of itself destroys its value as a correct list. Nevertheless we shall insert his list as well as the others; of course it is not altogether wrong, as it would be scarcely possible to name ten kingdoms at any time after the middle of the fifth century without including some of the right ones. He names them as follows:— “(1) Of the senate of Rome, who revolted from the Greek emperors, and claimed and exerted the privilege of choosing a new Western emperor; (2) of the Greeks in Ravenna; (3) of the Lombards in Lombardy; (4) of the Huns in Hungary; (5) of the Alemanes in Germany; (6) of the Franks in France; (7) of the Burgundians in Burgundy; (8) of the Goths in Spain; (9) of the Britons; (10) of the Saxons in Britain.” This list, being drawn in the eighth century, is after the establishment of the Papacy, and, consequently, is after the rooting up of the three that were displaced that it might be set up. And as the prophecy plainly says that “three of the first horns”—three of the ten—should be “plucked up by the roots,” it is certainly a vain effort to try to find ten after three of them have been taken entirely away. Therefore so far is the Bishop’s list from being of any real value as that of ten kingdoms, it is worthless as such, because it is made at a time when the prophecy allows but seven beside the Papacy. As for these seven, however, his list contains them all but one—the Suevi. Of the seven, he gives us the Lombards, the Alemanni, the Franks, the Visigoths, the Burgundians, and the Saxons. More Than Unto God
By Sel.
That Christianity appeals to an authority superior to merely human commands was exemplified in St. Peter’s appeal against the prohibition to follow conscience and God in preaching Christ: “But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” Acts 4:17–19 This was the recognition of the principle of final appeal on moral duty.—Sel. Triumphs of Christianity Under Persecution
AT the outset fierce and bitter persecution assailed Christianity; but every drop of martyr-blood shed for its sake blossomed in some new flower of Heaven’s own planting. Its purest triumphs, its most hopeful growths, were under the very agencies employed to crush it out of being.—Sel. Unbelief.
By Samuel P. Bollman
“And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.” Matt. 13:58. THE same hindrance which prevented the Saviour from performing many mighty works in Nazareth and its vicinity, has still a widespread existence, and hinders those remarkable demonstrations of Jesus's power now to save even to the uttermost the chief of sinners. “According to your faith be it unto you” (Matt. 9:29), seems to be the measure which indicates the extent of the blessings bestowed by the giver of “every good and perfect gift.” How strange that He “who went about doing good, healing all manner of diseases,” and even raising the dead; whose teaching was of that elevating and ennobling character which transformed into his own glorious image those who received it into good and honest hearts, should be so unpopular as not to have a hearing in any community! And that those mighty works, so merciful to the poor and suffering, should be restrained by the stubborn unbelief of those favored with such grand opportunities! But strange as it seems viewed in the light of truth, and of the wondrous possibilities which the gospel offers full and free for man's acceptance, it stands for a lamentation to-day, not in a narrow and circumscribed locality, but in the wide world and in every nation where the gospel is now being preached, that this same Captain of salvation cannot do many mighty works because of the general unbelief. HOW very dark the picture when we contemplate what is actually accomplished by all the operations of so-called evangelical Christendom combined; when the increase of population even within the pale of the different denominations so nearly equals the increase of membership that the rapidly swelling millions of the non-professing world, and the heathen, make the millennial theory of modern theology simply an absurdity! But what shall we say of the faith being disseminated; of the system of salvation offered to a perishing world? Is it a pure God-honoring and soul-saving faith which agrees with the prophecies and is truly exponential of present truth, or the Third Angel's Message? Ah, no! The teachings of the Scriptures with reference to these last days is not believed, its perfect harmony with divine revelation as a whole is repudiated, hence barrenness and leanness are characteristics of all the churches whose creeds are not in harmony with present truth. The lines of demarcation which, in years gone by, divided the church from the world, are mostly obliterated; and church records, and not the lives of professors of religion, have to be consulted in order to ascertain who has any connection with the nominal Christian churches; while festivals, sociables, and numerous worldly practices of the lottery and grab-bag character have obliterated the lines of distinction (once so sacred) between the church and the world. Truly the churches as a whole might unite in the melancholy stanza,— “What peaceful hours we once enjoyed;
How sweet their memory still;
But they have left a dreary void
The world can never fill.”
Why this sad state of affairs amongst the churches? It is because of unbelief. The Lord by his prophets, holy men of old who “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” gave full instructions as to how men in all ages should live to secure the divine blessing, and enjoy the light of God's countenance; but men do not believe the words of the Lord. They disregard the faithful instructions, and trample under foot his laws. They will not “ask for the old paths,” “the good way,” nor walk therein, and the Lord does not do “mighty works” amongst them, because of their unbelief. Unbelief makes the heavens as brass and the earth as iron to all those who have a name to live whilst they are dead in trespasses and in sins. Unbelief closes the eyes of the mighty multitudes, that they see not the truth for these times, and closes their ears, that they hear not the loud call of the Third Angel's Message as it is being sounded forth from nation to nation, and from island to island. Unbelief puts far off the coming of the Lord to give to every man as his work shall be. Unbelief laughs derisively at the little flock, who lift up their heads with joy, knowing that their redemption draweth nigh. Unbelief is even causing the chariot wheels of those who profess to “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus” to drag heavily, and the triumphs of present truth to be limited in extent and power, while extensive regions are perishing for lack of vision. May the Lord deliver all who are favored with the knowledge of present truth from the blighting influence of that unbelief, which practically says to the Saviour, “Depart from us, for we desire not a knowledge of thy ways.” A PRAYER.
By Christian at Work
LORD, speak to me, that I may speak
In living echoes of thy tone;
As thou hast sought, so let me seek
Thy erring children, lost and lone. O lead me, Lord, that I may lead
The wandering and the wavering feet;
O feed me, Lord, that I may feed
Thy hungering ones with manna sweet. O strengthen me, that while I stand
Firm on the rock and strong in thee,
I may stretch out a loving hand
To wrestlers with the troubled sea. The Teacher of the Bible.
By William Walton Clark
THIS is the Holy Ghost. John 14:26; 1 John 2:27; 1 Cor. 2:13. He who wrote the word is most competent to teach it. The mere acquisition of scriptural knowledge does not denote growth in the wisdom of God. We may learn the geography and chronology of the Bible, and may have its historical parts on our tongue’s end, and yet be wholly ignorant of its underlying spiritual principles. Man can teach much that is on the surface, but only the Holy Ghost can teach the deep hidden things of God. And this the great Teacher will help us to do, for it is his special province, “to search all things, yea the deep things of God.” The Holy Spirit enables us to search these important truths and to digest the strong meat of the word. Whether we look into these pages for ourselves or for our scholars, let us invoke the aid of the divine spirit in its interpretation, and cry out as did the Psalmist, “Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” “Holy Ghost, with light divine
Shine into this heart of mine.” In conclusion—let us, students and teachers, “read, mark, learn and inwardly digest” these sacred oracles, that every page may become “a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.” It is a wonderful book. It is an eternal book. As we look around us we see decay, destruction, ruin, and death stamped upon everything. These beautiful flowers will fade; these grasses will wither; this lovely earth which we delight to inhabit will soon “melt with fervent heat” and “the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll,” but the word of God, as he gave it, will endure forever. Yes, heaven and earth shall pass away, but thy word, O God, will never pass away.—Rev. William Walton Clark. The true Christian is like the sun, which pursues his noiseless track, and everywhere leaves the effect of his beams in a blessing upon the world around him.—Luther. Obeying God.
By Rev. G. W. Marcellus
THERE is no salvation, no Heaven without it. There cannot be any real trust nor faith without obedience to God. It is easy to exercise faith if we obey. Perfect faith and perfect obedience are inseparable. A weak and wavering faith is the result of hesitating to obey. Faith is not the result of involuntary, but voluntary obedience; for the latter is alone acceptable to God. Entire and perfect obedience, implies perfect submission in all respects to authority. Therefore, it requires constant and complete obedience to do what is implied in the words, “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven.” They that obey God know God, because God reveals himself specially to those that fear him. “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him.” The glorious fact is revealed to them that God, in the person of his Son, is their present Saviour. For “God, who is the Saviour of all men,” is, “specially of them that believe.” They that obey shall know of the doctrine. “If any man will do his will [obey the Lord], he shall know the doctrine.” For, “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” That is, “as many” as receive Christ, with all the commandments, and obey them fully, they and they only have the witness of the Spirit. John shows the connection between obeying God and knowing him. “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” “He that saith, I know him [i. e., I am a Christian], and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” Dear reader, do you obey the Lord by keeping his commandments? Pause, look the ground over carefully, for the commandments of God stand opposed to all sin—sin of thought, of motive, and of action. There is just one way, and only one way, to keep them; but there are a thousand ways in which they may be broken. Let us call your attention to two or three of them. And, First—Do you keep the Sabbath day holy? Do you visit, or allow visitors at your house, on the Lord’s day? Do you not call upon your friends or “kinfolks,” just for a pastime? If you call upon the sick, to minister to their wants, that will be right. But the circumstances are very few wherein one is excusable on any other consideration. Do you visit at church, before or after service, in the hall, vestibule, or pew? Perhaps you have been thinking, during the week, I want to see such persons; I have something to tell them; I must be sure to see them—if I do not, I shall have to go to their house during the week—thus making the Sabbath and its ordinances an occasion of advantage. This is not keeping the Sabbath holy. Let us all “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Second—Do you obey God by keeping the ninth commandment, which is, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”? This not only prohibits perjury, but all whispering, tale-bearing, slander, and calumny. It forbids all that may be told that has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to injure another in his goods, person, or character,—suppressing the truth, by which a person may be defrauded of his property or his good name, or lie under injuries or disabilities, which a discovery of the truth would have prevented. This is certainly a great crime. Reader, dost thou speak evil of any one? Then thou art in danger of hell. The commandment is, “Speak evil of no man.” May we remember, that “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” May our prayer ever be. “O Lord, set a watch before my mouth, keep the door of my lips.” Jesus says, “If ye love me, keep [all] my commandments.”—Rev. G. W. Marcellus, in Earnest Christian. The Catholic Mirror of September 18 contains a letter from Cardinal Gibbons, in which he announces to the clergy that Pope Leo XIII. has formulated certain prayers which are henceforth to be “said” after every Low Mass, instead of those now in use. These prayers are to be “said kneeling in all the churches of the world after the celebration of Low Mass.” Such is the order of the Pope. We do not know the nature of the prayers that are now declared to be out of date, nor why it is that they have lost their efficacy; but we have the text of the prayers which are now declared to be official, and we will favor our readers with them. The first is as follows:— “O God, our refuge and our strength, graciously look upon thy people who cry to thee; and through the intercession of the glorious and Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, of Blessed Joseph, her Spouse, and of thy holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, and all the saints, in thy mercy and kindness hear the prayers which we pour forth for the conversion of sinners, and for the freedom and exaltation of Holy Mother the Church. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.” The reader will notice that in this prayer Christ is not altogether ignored. After “the faithful” have implored the intercession of Mary, Joseph, Peter and Paul, “and all the saints,” they are permitted to close with a reference to the name of Christ. It requires no great discernment to see that among Catholics the name of Christ is not considered to be “above every name.” The second prayer is as follows:— “Holy Michael, the Archangel, defend us in the battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. Rebuke him, O God, we suppliantly beseech thee; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the divine power drive into hell Satan and the other evil spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.” Among the “other evil spirits” who are thus charitably consigned to hell are, of course, all those who oppose the Catholic Church; for “the church” regards all souls as ruined, who reject her dogmas and ceremonies. The two prayers, taken together, coming as they do from the Pope himself, afford a fair view of Catholicism at its best. But this is not all. The Cardinal closes with the following announcement:— “His Holiness Pope Leo XIII. grants to all who recite these prayers, as aforesaid, 300 days’ indulgence.” Here we have the veritable antichrist itself revealed. The granting of indulgences fitly accompanies the rejection of Christ as sole Mediator. Here we find the Pope promulgating, as a matter of course, the very things which aroused the holy zeal of Luther, and against which the Reformation was directed; yet to-day not one Protestant in ten thousand will give the matter a second thought. Professed Protestants now regard Catholicism as a “branch” or grand division of the Christian Church, and the National Reformers urge the necessity of courting its favor, and even of submitting to repeated rebuffs if in the end they can but secure the alliance of the Catholic Church. When we consider the increased civilized population of the world in the last four hundred years, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that Rome has already more than regained that which she lost by the Reformation. We think we are warranted in drawing the following conclusions:— 1. The Roman Catholic Church is the same to-day that it was four hundred years ago. The general diffusion of knowledge has caused her to change her tactics, but she still works for the same ends as then, and secures them. What she accomplished then by force, she now gains by flattery. But her doctrines and principles have not changed in the least, and she is just as ready to use force now, when she can, as she was then. 2. Protestantism is now little more than a name. “Protestants” as a class have ceased to “protest.” They are content with the knowledge of the fact that they are the descendants of those who did protest, and they view with indifference the rapidity with which the Church of Rome is extending its conquests over the world. 3. This indifference must arise from the fact that “Protestantism” so-called, has degenerated until it is very like Catholicism. If men were actuated by the spirit of the Reformers, they would as strongly protest against the evils of “the church” to-day, as those noble men did. The Reformation has been deformed, and that which the Reformers regarded as the enemy of the truth, their children are ready to embrace as the conservator of truth. Since “Rome never changes,” Protestantism must have changed, in order to bring about this state of things. 4. “National Reform” is Romanism under a different title. The Reformers withdrew from Rome, because Rome and they were antagonistic. If there had been oneness of thought and purpose, instead of antagonism, they would not have separated from Rome. But National Reformers are now seeking an alliance with Rome, and so anxious are they for this alliance, that they are determined to press their suit even though they may be repeatedly rejected. If the separation of the true Reformers from Rome indicated their antagonism to her, certainly the desired union of the National Reformers indicates their likeness to her. 5. If professed Protestants are so nearly like the Catholics that they cannot see any menace to the liberty of our country in the insidious advances of the Papacy; and if a degenerate Protestantism is anxious to ally itself with Catholicism, that both “branches” of “the church” may be thereby strengthened,—then when this degenerate Protestantism, under the name of “National Reform,” shall have succeeded in its purposes, it will certainly adopt the tactics, as it already has the principles, of Rome, and will not scruple to persecute those who cannot be won to its support by milder measures. Indeed, the National Reformers themselves concede this point, for Mr. Sommerville, in the Christian Nation, says that it is most certainly right “to take public money to teach principles, enforce laws, and introduce customs to which many members of the community are conscientiously opposed.” Papal Rome, in her highest period of exaltation, never did more than this. When a Government or power of any kind enforces laws and customs against the conscientious convictions of upright citizens, it is persecution for conscience’ sake. The National Reformers make no secret of their adherence to principles like this. Therefore we say that when National Reformers shall have succeeded in their designs, they will have nothing other than an exact image of the Papacy. Scripture is not silent upon this point. The leopard beast of Rev. 13: 1–8 is quite generally admitted to represent the Papacy; if any doubt this, their doubts may easily be silenced by the most convincing proof. The power brought to view in the verses following is said to “make an image” to this papal beast, and that image we now see in process of construction. Once men predicted from this prophecy just such an image to the Papacy, in this country; now they do not need to refer to the prophecy to be aware of the fact. It certainly is time for all who value civil and religious liberty to sound the alarm. And the urgent necessity of warning the people against the adoption of papal principles, whether under the name of Romanism or National Reform, is made still more evident by the following announcement of divine wrath upon all who take any part in such iniquitous alliances:— “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” Rev. 14: 9–11.