Earlier text: General ArticlesThe First Migrations of the Goths.
By Alonzo T. Jones
"The Scythian hordes, which, towards the east, bordered on the new settlements of the Goths, presented nothing to their arms, except the doubtful chance of an unprofitable victory. But the prospect of the Roman territories was far more alluring; and the fields of Dacia were covered with rich harvests, sown by the hands of an industrious, and exposed to be gathered by those of a warlike, people. It is probable that the conquests of Trajan, maintained by his successors less for any real advantage than for ideal dignity, had contributed to weaken the empire on that side. The new and unsettled province of Dacia was neither strong enough to resist, nor rich enough to satiate, the rapaciousness of the barbarians. As long as the remote banks of the Dniester were considered as the boundary of the Roman power, the fortifications of the Lower Danube were more carelessly guarded, and the inhabitants of Mæsia lived in supine security, fondly conceiving themselves at an inaccessible distance from any barbarian invaders. "The irruptions of the Goths, under the reign of Philip [A. D. 244-249], fatally convinced them of their mistake. The king, or leader, of that fierce nation, traversed with contempt the province of Dacia, and passed both the Dniester and the Danube without encountering any opposition capable of retarding his progress. The relaxed discipline of the Roman troops betrayed the most important posts where they were stationed, and the fear of deserved punishment induced great numbers of them to enlist under the Gothic standard. The various multitude of barbarians appeared, at length, under the walls of Marcianopolis, a city built by Trajan in honor of his sister, and at that time capital of the second Mæsia. The inhabitants consented to ransom their lives and property by the payment of a large sum of money, and the invaders retreated back into their deserts, animated, rather than satisfied, with the first success of their arms against an opulent, but feeble country. Intelligence was soon transmitted to the Emperor Decius, that Cniva [K-ne-va], king of the Goths, had passed the Danube a second time, with more considerable forces; that his numerous detachments scattered devastation over the province of Mæsia, whilst the main body of the army, consisting of seventy thousand Germans and Sarmatians, a force equal to the most daring achievements, required the presence of the Roman monarch, and the exertion of his military power. "Decius found [A. D. 250] the Goths engaged before Nicopolis, on the Jatrus, one of the many monuments of Trajan's victories. On his approach they raised the siege, but with a design only of marching away to a conquest of greater importance,—the siege of Philippopolis, a city of Thrace founded by the father of Alexander [the Great], near the foot of Mount Hæmus. Decius followed them through a difficult country and by forced marches; but when he imagined himself at a considerable distance from the rear of the Goths, Cniva turned with rapid fury on his pursuers. The camp of the Romans was surprised and pillaged, and, for the first time, their emperor fled in disorder before a troop of half-armed barbarians. After a long resistance, Philippopolis, destitute of succor, was taken by storm. A hundred thousand persons are reported to have been massacred in the sack of that great city. Many prisoners of consequence became a valuable accession to the spoil; and Priscus, a brother of the late Emperor Philip, blushed not to assume the purple under the protection of the barbarous enemies of Rome. The time, however, consumed in that tedious siege, enabled Decius to revive the courage, restore the discipline, and recruit the numbers of his troops. He intercepted several parties of Carpi and other Germans, who were hastening to share the victory of their countrymen, intrusted the passes of the mountains to officers of approved valor and fidelity, repaired and strengthened the fortifications of the Danube, and exerted his utmost vigilance to oppose either the progress or the retreat of the Goths. Encouraged by the return of fortune, he anxiously waited for an opportunity to retrieve, by a great and decisive blow, his own glory, and that of the Roman arms." "The Goths were now, on every side, surrounded and pursued by the Roman arms. The flower of their troops had perished in the long siege of Philippopolis, and the exhausted country could no longer afford subsistence for the remaining multitude of licentious barbarians. Reduced to this extremity, the Goths would gladly have purchased, by the surrender of all their booty and prisoners, the permission of an undisturbed retreat. But the emperor, confident of victory, and resolving, by the chastisement of these invaders, to strike a salutary terror into the nations of the North, refused to listen to any terms of accommodation. "The high-spirited barbarians preferred death to slavery. An obscure town of Mæsia, called Forum Terebronii, was the scene of the battle. The Gothic army was drawn up in three lines, and, either from choice or accident, the front of the third line was covered by a morass. In the beginning of the action, the son of Decius, a youth of fairest hopes, and already associated to the honors of the purple, was slain by an arrow in the sight of his afflicted father; who, summoning all his fortitude, admonished the dismayed troops that the loss of a single soldier was of little importance to the republic. "The conflict was terrible: it was the combat of despair against grief and rage. The first line of the Goths at length gave way in disorder; the second, advancing to sustain it, shared its fate; and the third only remained entire, prepared to dispute the passage of the morass, which was imprudently attempted by the presumption of the enemy. Here the fortune of the day turned, and all things became adverse to the Romans: the place, deep with ooze, sinking under those who stood, slippery to such as advanced; their armor heavy, the waters deep; nor could they wield, in that uneasy situation, their weighty javelins. The barbarians, on the contrary, were inured to encounters in the bogs, their persons tall, their spears long, such as could wound at a distance. In this morass the Roman army, after an ineffectual struggle, was irrecoverably lost; nor could the body of the emperor ever be found." "This fatal blow humbled, for a very little time, the insolence of the legions. They appear to have patiently expected, and submissively obeyed, the decree of the senate which regulated the succession to the throne. From a just regard for the memory of Decius, the Imperial title was [A. D. 251, December] conferred on Hostilianus, his only surviving son; but an equal rank, with more effectual power, was granted to Gallus, whose experience and ability seemed equal to the great trust of guardian to the young prince and the distressed empire. The first care of the new emperor was to deliver the Illyrian provinces from the intolerable weight of the victorious Goths. He [A. D. 252] consented to leave in their hands the rich fruits of their invasion, an immense booty, and what was still more disgraceful, a great number of prisoners of the highest merit and quality. He plentifully supplied their camp with every conveniency that could assuage their angry spirits, or facilitate their so much wished-for departure; and he even promised to pay them annually a large sum of gold, on condition they should never afterwards infest the Roman territories by their incursions." "But the Romans were irritated to a still higher degree when they discovered that they had not even secured their repose, though at the expense of their honor. The dangerous secret of the wealth and weakness of the empire had been revealed to the world. New swarms of barbarians, encouraged [A. D. 253] by the success, and not conceiving themselves bound by the obligations of their brethren, spread devastation through the Illyrian provinces, and terror as far as the gates of Rome. The defense of the monarchy, which seemed abandoned by the pusillanimous emperor, was assumed by Æmilianus, governor of Pannonia and Mæsia, who rallied the scattered forces, and revived the fainting spirits of the troops. The barbarians were unexpectedly attacked, routed, chased, and pursued beyond the Danube. The victorious leader distributed as a donative the money collected for the tribute, and the acclamations of the soldiers proclaimed him emperor on the field of battle." "We have already traced the emigration of the Goths from Scandinavia, or at least from Prussia, to the mouth of the Borysthenes, and have followed their victorious arms from the Borysthenes to the Danube. Under the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus [A. D. 253-268], the frontier of the last-mentioned river was perpetually infested by the inroads of Germans and Sarmatians; but it was defended by the Romans with more than usual firmness and success. Though flying parties of the barbarians, who incessantly hovered on the banks of the Danube, penetrated sometimes to the confines of Italy and Macedonia, their progress was commonly checked, or their return intercepted, by the imperial lieutenants. But the great stream of the Gothic hostilities was diverted into a very different channel. The Goths, in their new settlement of the Ukraine, soon became masters of the northern coast of the Euxine. To the south of that inland sea were situated the soft and wealthy provinces of Asia Minor, which possessed all that could attract, and nothing that could resist, a barbarian conqueror. "The banks of the Borysthenes are only sixty miles distant from the narrow entrance of the peninsula of Crim Tartary [the Crimea], known to the ancients under the name of Chersonesus Taurica. The little kingdom of Bosphorus, whose capital was situated on the straits through which the Mæotis [Sea of Azov] communicates itself to the Euxine, was composed of degenerate Greeks and half-civilized barbarians. Domestic factions, and the fears or private interest of obscure usurpers, who seized on the vacant throne, admitted the Goths into the heart of Bosphorus. With the acquisition of a superfluous waste of fertile soil, the conquerors obtained the command of a naval force sufficient to transport their armies to the coast of Asia. "The ships used in the navigation of the Euxine were of a very singular construction. They were slight flat-bottomed barks, framed of timber only, without the least mixture of iron, and occasionally covered with a shelving roof on the appearance of a tempest. In these floating houses the Goths carelessly trusted themselves to the mercy of an unknown sea, under the conduct of sailors pressed into the service, and whose skill and fidelity were equally suspicious. But the hopes of plunder had banished every idea of danger, and a natural fearlessness of temper supplied in their minds the more rational confidence which is the just result of knowledge and experience." "The fleet of the Goths, leaving the coast of Circassia on the left hand, first appeared before Pityus, the utmost limits of the Roman provinces; a city provided with a convenient port, and fortified with a strong wall. Here they met with a resistance more obstinate than they had reason to expect from the feeble garrison of a distant fortress. They were repulsed; and their disappointment seemed to diminish the terror of the Gothic name. As long as Successianus, an officer of superior rank and merit, defended that frontier, all their efforts were ineffectual;741 but as soon as he was removed by Valerian to a more honorable but less important station, they resumed the attack of Pityus; and by the destruction of that city, obliterated the memory of their former disgrace. "Circling round the eastern extremity of the Euxine Sea, the navigation from Pityus to Trebizond is about three hundred miles. The course of the Goths carried them in sight of the country of Colchis, so famous by the expedition of the Argonauts; and they even attempted, though without success, to pillage a rich temple at the mouth of the river Phasis. Trebizond . . . was large and populous; a double inclosure of walls seemed to defy the fury of the Goths, and the usual garrison had been strengthened by a re-enforcement of ten thousand men. But there are not any advantages capable of supplying the absence of discipline and vigilance. The numerous garrison of Trebizond, dissolved in riot and luxury, disdained to guard their impregnable fortifications. The Goths soon discovered the supine negligence of the besieged, erected a lofty pile of fascines, ascended the walls in the silence of the night, and entered the defenseless city sword in hand. "A general massacre of the people ensued, while the affrighted soldiers escaped through the opposite gates of the town. The most holy temples and the most splendid edifices were involved in a common destruction. The booty that fell into the hands of the Goths was immense. The wealth of the adjacent countries had been deposited in Trebizond, as in a secure place of refuge. The number of captives was incredible, as the victorious barbarians ranged without opposition through the extensive province of Pontus. The rich spoils of Trebizond filled a great fleet of ships that had been found in the port. The robust youth of the sea-coast were collected to the oar; and the Goths, satisfied with the success of their first naval expedition, returned in triumph to their new establishments in the kingdom of Bosphorus."—Dec. and Fall, chap. 10, par. 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 30-33. This was the command and exhortation which came to the disciples in audible voice out of the heavens, when they were with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. Three times did God, with such a voice, testify to the divine character of Jesus Christ, and to his personal relations to himself. “Hear ye him.” Moses and the prophets hitherto had been to the people the authorized teachers. Indeed, they had become so venerated that their character as inspired teachers of God’s word had almost been forgotten, and they were resorted to as though their words were their very own. Moses was more to many of them than God himself. He was as God. It is not unnatural for us to exalt the messenger above the message, especially if for any reason he becomes especially the object of our admiration or attachment. It was not the fault of Moses and the prophets that they had almost displaced God in the minds and affections of the Jews, in the days of Christ; for they did not testify of themselves, nor did they ever speak in their own name. From the days of Abraham to the last of the prophets, they all prophesied of Christ. Nevertheless, when Christ came, the very people to whom Moses and the prophets were the very fountain-heads of authority, did not receive him of whom they all did testify. As if to remind them of the fact that Moses and the prophets were not to be exalted above, or even retained on a level with, the one of whom in the law and the prophets they did testify, Moses and Elias appeared in visible presence before their eyes, talking with Jesus. It was as though these chiefest figures of the Old Testament dispensation now appeared to lay down their commissions at the feet of him from whom they had originally received them, saying, by their presence with him, “This is he of whom we spake, both in the law and in the prophets.” At the suggestion of Peter that three tabernacles be built, one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elias, these two Old Testament worthies vanished out of sight, taking themselves away from being even the occasion of such a suggestion. Then it was that the voice came out of Heaven, saying: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” There is a great present practical lesson in this to us. One of the evil habits of our day is that people go to hear men talk about Christ, rather than to hear what Christ has to say to them. The teacher gets in the way of the Master. The word to-day is, “Let us go and hear Dr. So-and-so, or Mr. This, or Rev. That.” These are the men who have acquired the greatest reputation for eloquence, learning, or sensation; and striking style of rhetoric or of pulpit manner and matter. It is not to hear Him, but his messenger, that they go; and not so much for the message, as to hear and see how the messenger will deliver it. It is rarely that the ordinary church-goer starts off Sabbath morning with the thought: “I will go up to the house of God to hear what he has to say to me.” It is rather: “I wonder what the pastor will have to say to us.” No doubt there is the implied thought of hearing the divine message, but the danger and tendency is to exalt or magnify the messenger. For is it not common, if a favorite pastor is away and a stranger occupies the pulpit, even though he comes with God’s message, that many will take that occasion to “go and hear some one else to-day”? If the question were asked, “What are you going to hear?” it would be a chance if the motive were much higher than a curiosity to hear the man on account of his fame as a preacher, rather than the fame of his messages. A sermon is as different from the message it bears, as a coach is from the passenger it carries. This tendency to hear men rather than Christ, leads to most of the bad habits of the pulpit. Young preachers learn to pay more attention to the composition of their sermons than to the matter of them; more to their manner and style of delivery than to the message they have to deliver. Unconsciously they prepare their sermons more with the thought of how the sermon will be received than how the message will be received. The man who preaches is far oftener discussed than his message. Whereas, if we all took to heart this Heaven-given injunction, “Hear ye him,” we would demand that Christ should be made to speak to us, rather than our pastors. We would insist on more of the word of God, and less of the “topics of the day;” more upon having things new and old drawn from the store-house of revelation, than the original thoughts of the preacher. It was the apostle Paul who went with this determination to his congregations: “I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” And again he says: “We preach Christ.” He came not with excellency of speech, nor with words of man’s wisdom, but the words suggested by the Holy Spirit and drawn from the Scriptures. The result of this deliberate laying aside of the mere graces and captivating tricks of oratory was, that he managed to leave us epistles which speak of Christ, rather than of Paul; that set the divine Saviour before our eyes, evidently crucified for us. It is the matter of his epistles which makes Paul so great a preacher. He is, indeed, seen in them; but as being behind them, and, as it were, lost in Christ. For him to live and preach was Christ. Indeed, so identified was he with Christ, that the life he lived in the flesh was so in the faith of Christ that he could truly say that it was Christ that lived in him. “What did you think of him?” said an earnest Christian friend to one whom he had brought with him to church. “Well,” was the reply, “I thought him to be in earnest, but not very fresh or original. Indeed, I must confess that he seemed to me a little dull. I should think you would tire of that kind of preaching. It was a mere stringing together of scriptures.” “Oh!” responded the friend, “I did not mean the pastor. I meant the Master, the one altogether lovely and the chief among ten thousand; of whom the pastor spoke.” “Oh! really, I was not thinking of him at all. It had not occurred to me to make up any judgment about him. I suppose he is all right. We all believe in him, you know.” How many go to church in this same mood; not to hear him, but the pastor; not to make up any judgment as to his words, but only to sit in judgment either for or against the style and literary worth of the pastor’s sermon. “Hear ye him.” GENUINE Christianity does not put all of its force into prayer-meeting tones; but it is given to good deeds and words, done and said through the day to make others happier and better; it is a doer of the word and work. "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" was the sensible and practical question of the jailer to Paul and Silas. He was to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." But, if you ever noticed it, when salvation comes to a man’s house, and he receives it joyfully, it always sets him to stirring around to see what he can do for God. What could the jailer do in this case? Though the backs of these servants of God were bleeding and smarting from the "many stripes" which the bare flesh had received at the command of the magistrates, it is not recorded that they even asked to have them bathed; but the converted jailer "took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes." You do not have to stand and beat it into the head of a truly converted man what needs to be done; he is looking for it, and goes joyously at it. If these men of God had been as thoughtful of self and thoughtless of the salvation of others and the cause of God generally as many are to-day, they would have replied to the jailer’s question something like this: Wash our backs first; and we will see. Think of a jailer who but a few hours before thrust these men "into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks" as common culprits, turning nurse and washing their backs! Well, that is the way the gospel works; "it is the power of God unto salvation." Take the case of Zaccheus. As soon as salvation came into his house hear him: "Behold, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold." He must have had that kind of religion that makes one feel rich enough without much of this world’s goods; and that is the way it works when Christ is joyfully received. A godless soul worth millions is in misery for fear of coming to want, while he who communes with Heaven with nothing but a rock-heap for a pillow can say, "This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of Heaven." Oh, get "Christ in you, the hope of glory," and then you must do something for him. How much better than to listlessly wish you might do something—some great thing—in order that you may be Christ’s.—Messiah’s Herald. Self-Restraint and Success
For want of self-restraint many men are engaged all their lives in fighting with difficulties of their own making, and rendering success impossible by their own cross-grained ungentleness; whilst others, it may be much less gifted, make their way and achieve success by simple patience, equanimity, and self-control. The Sabbath-School.
By E. J. W.
LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—JAN. 2.
THE lesson for this week is a continuation of the recapitulation begun last week, and we know not how to present it better than to give the lesson entire, with our comments in the form of answers to the several questions. 1. DURING the period covered by the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Grecia, what form of religious worship prevailed?
Paganism was the prevailing religion, not only from the rise of the kingdom of Babylon, but from the fall of Adam. The worship of idols soon almost entirely displaced the worship of God, so that the light of truth was at times wholly obscured. The moral condition of the world under heathenism is very briefly and delicately described by Paul in Rom. 1:22-32; Eph. 4:17-19; 5:11, 12. 2. WHAT name is given to this form of religion in Dan. 8:11-13?
Paganism is referred to in Dan. 8:11-13 by the term "the daily," not "the daily sacrifice," but "the daily desolation." The term "daily" or "continual" is aptly applied to it, since it was for ages the continual form of worship. 3. How long did this religion prevail after Rome became supreme?
For about five hundred years after Rome acquired universal dominion, paganism continued to be the prevailing religion. In Constantine's time (A. D. 311-337) it ceased to be the religion of the empire; but it did not wholly lose its place as the State religion until about two hundred years later. - WHAT religion then gained the ascendancy?
- Who was the first Roman emperor that favored the Christian religion?
- When did this emperor reign?
These three questions we answer together, for the sake of convenience. The Christian religion was that which superseded paganism in the Roman world. When we say "the Christian religion," we do not mean the Christian religion as we find it portrayed in the gospels, but a corrupted form of Christianity. "Pure religion and undefiled before God," has never met with general acceptance in this world, and will never be the prevailing religion until sin and sinners are destroyed, and the new heavens and new earth appear, "wherein dwelleth righteousness."Constantine is properly styled "the first Christian emperor." He began to reign in a subordinate position in A. D. 306; in 311 A. D. he became sole emperor of Western Rome, and it is from this time that his conversion to Christianity is dated; ten years later, in 323 A. D., he became sole emperor of the Roman Empire, or of the world. He died in A. D. 337. For a brief but vivid view of his life, see "Encyclopædia Britannica," art. "Constantine." When we say that he nominally accepted Christianity in A. D. 311, we have said all that can be said. Conceive of an autocrat with the vices of a heathen ruler and the name of a Christian, and you have a picture of "the first Christian emperor." The following extract is a fair picture: "The sublime theory of the gospel had made a much fainter impression on the heart than on the understanding of Constantine himself. He pursued the great object of his ambition through the dark and bloody paths of war and policy; and after the victory, he abandoned himself, without moderation, to the abuse of his fortune. Instead of asserting his just superiority above the imperfect heroism and profane philosophy of Trajan and the Antonines, the mature age of Constantine forfeited the reputation which he had acquired in his youth. As he gradually advanced in knowledge of truth, he proportionately declined in the practice of virtue; and the same year of his reign in which he convened the council of Nice (A. D. 325), was polluted by the execution, or rather murder, of his eldest son."—Decline and Fall, chap. 20, par. 17. - How did he try to make the Christian religion popular?
- How did he cause unprincipled men to profess to be Christians, when they were really heathen at heart?
The mere fact that the emperor professed Christianity would tend to make it popular; but the form which would be popular can be imagined by the character of Constantine, and the means which he used to propagate his religion, which are described by the historian as follows: "By the edicts of toleration, he removed the temporal disadvantages which had hitherto retarded the progress of Christianity; and its active and numerous ministers received a free permission, a liberal encouragement, to recommend the salutary truths of revelation by every argument which could affect the reason or piety of mankind. The exact balance of the two religions continued but a moment; and the piercing eye of ambition and avarice soon discovered that the profession of Christianity might contribute to the interest of the present as well as of a future life. The hopes of wealth and honors, the example of an emperor, his exhortations, his irresistible smiles, diffused conviction among the venal and obsequious crowds which usually fill the apartments of a palace. The cities which signalized a forward zeal by the voluntary destruction of their temples, were distinguished by municipal privileges, and rewarded with popular donations; and the new capital of the East gloried in the singular advantage that Constantinople was never profaned by the worship of idols. As the lower ranks of society are governed by imitation, the conversion of those who possessed any eminence of birth, of power, or of riches, was soon followed by dependent multitudes. The salvation of the common people was purchased at an easy rate, if it be true that in one year twelve thousand men were baptized at Rome, besides a proportionable number of women and children, and that a white garment with twenty pieces of gold, had been promised by the emperor to every convert."—Decline and Fall, chap. 20, par. 18.9. How was the church affected by such a course?
As might be expected when men by the thousands gave a nominal assent to Christianity without the slightest knowledge of its spirit, the church speedily became very corrupt. Mosheim, the learned church historian, says that in the second century "a large part of the Christian observances and institutions" "had the aspect of heathen mysteries."—Eccl. Hist., Book 1, century 2, part 2, chap. 4, sec. 5. If this was the case in the second century, how much more would it be true in the fifth? In describing the church after Constantine's "conversion," Mosheim says:— "Genuine piety was supplanted by a long train of superstitious observances, which originated partly from opinions inconsiderately embraced, partly from a preposterous disposition to adopt profane rites and combine them with Christian worship, and partly from the natural predilection of mankind in general for a splendid and ostentatious religion. . . . Further, the public supplications by which the pagans were accustomed to appease their gods, were borrowed from them, and were celebrated in many places with great pomp. To the temples, to water consecrated in due form, and to the images of holy men, the same efficacy was ascribed and the same privileges assigned as had been attributed to the pagan temples, statues, and lustrations before the advent of Christ. Images, indeed, were as yet but rare, and statues did not exist. And shameful as it may appear, it is beyond all doubt that the worship of the martyrs—with no bad intentions indeed, yet to the great injury of the Christian cause—was modeled by degrees into conformity with the worship which the pagans had in former times paid to their gods. From these specimens, the intelligent reader will be able to conceive how much injury resulted to Christianity from the peace and repose procured by Constantine, and from an indiscreet eagerness to allure the pagans to embrace this religion."—Eccl. Hist., Book 2, cent. 4, part 2, chap. 3, sec. 2. - WHAT disgraceful course was taken about the middle of the fifth century by several of the leading bishops?
- How was this question decided in A. D. 533?
- When and how was the supremacy of the bishop of Rome fully established?
During the fifth century there was a great contest among the leading bishops of the churches, each struggling for the supremacy. Among the most active in this disgraceful strife were the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem. In A. D. 533, the matter was decided by a decree of the Emperor Justinian, declaring the pope of Rome to be head over all the churches. The three powers that opposed this decree were the three horns that were to be plucked up by the little horn of Daniel 7. The last of these was conquered in A. D. 538, and the great papal hierarchy was then established.13. WHAT is this papal religion called in Dan. 8:13?
It is justly styled "the transgression of desolation." - How is pagan Rome symbolized in the seventh of Daniel?
- How is papal Rome symbolized in the same chapter?
In the seventh of Daniel, pagan Rome is symbolized by the "dreadful and terrible" beast with ten horns (verse 7), and papal Rome is symbolized by the same beast after the "little horn" with the eyes of a man, and the mouth speaking great things, had arisen and plucked up three horns. The "little horn" itself represents the papacy.16. WHAT is meant by the terms "pagan Rome" and "papal Rome"?
"Pagan Rome" means Rome when idolatry was the prevailing religion; "papal Rome" applies to the same power after Christianity had nominally become the religion of the empire. The word "pagan" is from the Latin pagus, meaning a district, from which comes paganus, belonging to the country. Changes are made much more rapidly in cities than they are in the country or remote villages; and so it happened that for some time after Christianity had been accepted by the court of Constantine, and by the inhabitants of the large cities, the people residing in the country still worshiped idols. Therefore those who worshiped idols received the appellation of "pagans." This term was not used to designate the heathen until the first centuries of the Christian era. "Papal" is derived from papa, father, a name applied to the bishops of Rome, from whence comes also the name "pope." LACK of space makes it impossible for us to give the remaining questions with specific answers. Specimens of the "great words" which the Romish Church has spoken against the Most High have been given in the SIGNS in notes on previous lessons. We have also given quotations to show that the prediction that the little horn should "wear out the saints of the743 Most High," has been fulfilled by the Roman Catholic Church. We have seen how its power was curtailed in 1798, at the close of the 1260 years (time and times and the dividing of time), and that its blasphemous pretensions have increased until the present time. This check that was put upon the papacy is represented in Rev. 13:3 by the statement that one of the heads received a deadly wound. The prophet saw this deadly wound healed, so that "all the world wondered after the beast." This was partially fulfilled when Pius VII. was set in the papal chair, in place of the pope who had been deposed two years before. Its complete fulfillment, however, is yet future; for the prophet saw that the 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." Dan. 7:21, 22. A complete restoration to its former power yet awaits the papacy. But its triumphing will be short; for the Lord will soon come, and destroy "that wicked," utterly consuming it (Dan. 7:11; 2 Thess. 2:8), and then "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." Dan. 7:27.